[Hwiccee]

Just a quick correction to my previous post.

Of the British units only Nassau’s was at Almansa. The other two were in garrison at Alicante at the time of the battle. All 4 of the Dutch units were at the battle.

Managed to confuse myself last time 🙂

[Hwiccee]

Only 3 of these actually made it into any kind of existance and they went to Spain. These were Blosset’s, Syborg’s and Nassau’s – this last is sometimes described as ‘German’.

They fought in the 1707 campaign at Almansa and suffered badly at that. They were then disbanded over the next few years. We know nothing about their uniforms and flags.

The Dutch also had 4 units of Huguenots who also ended up in Iberia and also did badly at Almansa. 1 of these was actually mainly financed by the British but destroyed in the battle. We do have the uniforms/flags for these or at least a best guess.

One (Vicouse) was in blue and probably with red facings. The other (Lisle Marais) was in light grey and yellow facings. Both had ‘French style’ flags of all black with the white cross on it. On top of that were coats of arms, decorations, etc. So like the Piemont regiment in the French army but with stuff on it.

The above is from Hall’s book on the Dutch army so a good source probably. I mention it as a possible source for making up the stuff for the British.

[Hwiccee]

Whirlwind wrote:

 I am still thinking through the implication of Swedish brigades, Dutch-order cavalry and Harquebusiers possessing ‘Defensive Fire’ whilst musket-armed regiments and Dragoons don’t but hey, other people know much more about this period than me and happy to roll with this for the time being. It is more important to get the mechanics right and then calibrate to taste, anyway.

I thought you might be interested in why musket armed foot/dragoons don’t get this but the Swedish Brigades, Dutch Style cavalry and Harquebusiers do. The key thing here is the ‘do’s’ use a short high volume of fire as part of their tactics while the ‘don’t’ use a steady but low volume of fire.

So at the time for infantry the standard tactics for foot was for 1 rank of the 6 to 12 ranks to fire standing up and then pass through the unit to the rear. They would then reload and shuffled forward as the other ranks fired & themselves went to the back. So a steady low number of shots. This is usually called ‘counter march’ firing. When charged the units would perhaps get a few ranks firing, depending on how far away the charge was away when it started, how efficient they were, etc. So maybe 1 to 3 of the 6 to 12 ranks might fire.

Foot that have ‘defensive fire’ do things differently. They could fire like above but against charges they would fire a salvo/volley. So Swedish Brigades were in 6 ranks and they would close up to 3 ranks by using the gaps that normally allowed the fires to move to the back to reload to squeeze 6 ranks into 3 ranks. In 3 ranks the ranks would kneel/stoop/rearrange themselves so that all of them could fire. They would then do so in a, hopefully, devastating single firing by all the musketeers that would stop the charge dead. So a lot heavier fire and a ‘shock’ effect compared to ‘normal’ firing.

So ‘ordinary’ musket armed foot and dragoons do ‘counter marching’ and are just as effect as similar units with ‘defensive fire’ but they don’t have the ability to do that tactic if charged.

It was a similar story with the cavalry. Most of the cavalry of the time fired as part of a charge and counter charged if attacked. The exact details on how this was done varied but the following is perhaps a good example. So the ‘other’ cavalry would fire as part of the move forward in a charge or counter charge. Typically just the front rank of 3 or more ranks of cavalry would fire, more or less on the move, a pistol or maybe 2 as part of the charge. Dutch style cavalry and Harquebusiers didn’t do this. Instead they don’t counter charge, at least initially, and they are trying to use ‘mass firepower’ to stop the charge dead. So they would stand their ground and try to get more than one rank to fire by. In addition each soldier would fire his carbine and 2 or more pistols against the attackers. So hopefully more ranks would fire and each rank would fire more than in other types of tactics. Once again a substantially higher volume of fire compared to ‘normal’ which would, hopefully, stop the attack dead.

If the fire worked for the Dutch Style/Harquebusier what they did next varied. For the Dutch Style cavalry it would now be time for them to charge/counter charge the previous attackers who were now hopefully standing in disorder in front of them. The Harquebusiers were generally different as they were intend to be ‘support troop’ to other types, typically Cuirassiers. So in a perfect world they would never engage in close combat. If their fire stopped a charge there should, in theory, be a friendly Cuirassier or other unit nearby to deliver the final blow.

I hope that makes sense? So in short while most units of the time use firing as part of their combat techniques but these use short periods of high firepower.

Finally on your last comment on ‘calibrating to taste’ this is something you should certinly do generally and in this specific case. So for this if you think a standard musket armed or dragoon unit, or indeed any unit,in a particular battle ot scenario can do something like this then please give them ‘defensive fire’. They certainly could have learnt to do it but generally didn’t at this time.

[Hwiccee]

Tony Hughes wrote:

A white cross on black is the Cornish flag, reputed to have a long ancestry but with quite sketchy evidence for its actual use in the distant past. Also sometimes said to be a flag used by Bretons (not surprising as the populations are related).

It is also the flag used by the French regiment Piedmont which, it seems to me, makes it an unlikely choice if one had the French army as an enemy.

Having tried to ascertain flags for Huguenot units in Ireland and failed to get any measure of certainty in answers I wish you luck in finding answers. As said above, if Hall can only find conjectural designs, I’m not likely to get very far. Tony of TTT

To be clear the Hall flags have the black & white ‘French style’ background and then lot of other stuff on top – the Dutch coat of arms, mottos, other motifs/emblems and possibly the colonel’s coat of arms.

I agree on Hall. If he doesn’t know then you are going to need a lot of luck & I don’t the other books suggested, which are basically dumbed down versions of Hall, are not likely to help.

[Hwiccee]

The excellent Hall books on the Dutch army has speculative flags for 2 units in the WSS – Vicouse and Lisle Marais.

This says the flags depicted are –

“The flag shown is based on a reconstruction by August Kühn. His source, which
we do not know, described the flags as “black with white crosses and the
emblems of the Maritime Powers paying for the regiment.””

and –

“Based on a statement (source unknown) that the Huguento regiments had black
flags with white crosses and the emblems of the country which supported the
regiment, August Kühn made a series of reconstructions which, as far as we can
ascertain, are plausible though I suspect the references to “white crosses” would
mean crosses of the type used as a sign by the Huguentos rather than the French
cross of Saint Denis used by Kühn. We offer our version here.]”

They show a French style flag with a white cross and the 4 corners are black. On top of this are various designs.

This is likely to be the best you will get as Kuhn and Hall are easily the most accurate thing available.

I hope this helps.

[Hwiccee]

The PDF versions of the ‘With Fire and Sword’ rules supplement and the 3 accompanying scenario books are now available as PDF downloads. These cover the 17th century wars in Eastern Europe between the Poles/Lithuanians, Russians, Swedes, Cossascks, Tatars and others.

https://www.wyrehistoricbooks.co.uk/catalogue/with-fire-and-sword-pdf-download

[Hwiccee]

Here are some details of the 3rd of the new scenario books for warfare in Eastern Europe in the 17th century. These are designed to be used with the Twilight of Divine Right rules and the With Fire and Sword supplement to these rules for Eastern warfare. See – https://www.wyrehistoricbooks.co.uk/home. I will post information on the final book later.

The third ‘With Fire and Sword’ scenario book is ‘The War for the Ukraine, 1654-1676‘.

This book focuses on the battles between the Cossacks, Polish Lithuanians, Russians and Tatars for control of the Ukraine area from 1654 – 1667. Shifting alliances, factions splitting and taking different sides, etc, was common and so various combinations of these forces provided the forces in the battles. In addition some of the scenarios are from elsewhere in this period and from the war against the Ottomans in 1672 -1676.

The scenarios cover the following battles –

1. Konotop, 1659
2. Polonka, 1660
3. Chudow Campaign, 1660
4. Lubar, 14th September 1660
5. Lubar, 16th September 1660
6. Slobodyszcze, 1660
7. Kanev, 1662
8. Chocim, 1673
9. Zurawno, 1676

Some background information on the wars of this period.

The Thirteen Years War of 1654 – 1667:

As the hopes of the Cossacks achieving independence from the commonwealth without assistance faded the Cossacks looked for allies. In 1654 the Russians intervened in the ongoing conflict between the Commonwealth and the Cossacks. The war soon became a war for whether the Commonwealth or Russia would control the Ukraine. The Cossacks split into factions supporting the two sides and also still trying to become independent. The Crimean Khanate (Tatars) shifted their support between the sides during the course of events. The war saw Russia using a largely Western style army and achieving some success. It was the start of Russia’s rise in status to a great power. While the partial Commonwealth loss of control of the Ukraine was a significant step in their relative decline.

The Polish Ottoman War of 1672 – 1676:

After the conclusion of the Thirteen Years War the Crimean Khanate (the Tatars) continued to intervene in Ukrainian affairs. The Tatars were hoping to further undermine the Commonwealth’s position in the area and gain control of it themselves. In the years before 1672 the Tatars attempted to do this by supporting a Cossack faction that wished to become a vassal of the Ottomans, in effect would be under Tatar control, but without any success. Therefore the Tatars asked the Ottomans to intervene in the conflict to force the issue. In 1672 a massive Ottoman force invaded a weak and divided Commonwealth forcing a collapse and virtual surrender by the Commonwealth leadership. This turn of events was not accepted by large parts of the Commonwealth and opposition to it was soon organised by the famous leader Sobieski. Commonwealth forces rallied to Sobieski and they successfully managed to contest the Ottomans until peace could be obtained. The Commonwealth had survived as an independent entity but had been severely weakened.

[Hwiccee]

Guy Farrish wrote:

B*gg*r I’m going to have to buy some of these aren’t I?

Thanks for your order Guy, I hope you like them when they arrive.

[Hwiccee]

Here are some details of the 2nd of the new scenario books for warfare in Eastern Europe in the 17th century. These are designed to be used with the Twilight of Divine Right rules and the With Fire and Sword supplement to these rules for Eastern warfare. See – https://www.wyrehistoricbooks.co.uk/home.

I will post information on the final book later.

The second ‘With Fire and Sword’ scenario book is ‘The Deluge, 1632-1660‘.

This book focuses on the Polish Lithuanian battles mainly against the Cossacks and Swedes during the period called the ‘Deluge’ and against the Khmelnytsky Cossack revolt. The main opponent in the war of 1648 -1657 is the Cossacks while that of 1655 – 1660 is mainly against the Swedes. It is also common for allies to be present on one or both sides. In addition the Russian war against the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth in 1632 – 1634 is also covered.

The scenarios cover the following battles –

• Smolensk, 1633
• Pyliavsti, 1648
• Berestecko, 1651
• Batoh, 1652
• Zarnow, 1655
• Warsaw, 1656

 

Some background information on the wars of this period.

The Smolensk War of 1632-1634:

Following the death of the previous Commonwealth king the Russians tried to exploit this b trying to retake territory they had lost in previous wars. The Russians had reacted to previous defeats and in this new war large numbers of ‘Western style’ units would be fielded in their army. Although the new army had little success this war marked Russia’s progress towards modernising their army.

 

The Khmelnytsky Revolt 1648-1657:

In 1648 the Cossacks under Khmelnytsky revolted against the Commonwealth. The success of the Cossacks quickly lead to others attacking the Commonwealth and the period know as ‘The Deluge’ when the Commonwealth. In the early stages of the revolt the Cossacks and their Crimean Khanate (the Tatars) allies fought the Commonwealth forces in an attempt to secure independence. Cossack reverses soon made this difficult to achieve and Khmelnytsky looked for aid from elsewhere before withdrawing temporarily from the growing series of wars.

The Swedish Deluge 1655-1660:

Sweden had in theory been at war with the Commonwealth for some time but had not actively prosecuted it. As the situation in the Commonwealth disintegrated during 1654 with the Russian intervention in the ongoing conflict with the Cossacks and Tatars the Swedes saw an opportunity for themselves. Assembling a strong force the Swedes invaded the Commonwealth in 1655 and against weal opposition swept all in front of them. The hard-pressed Commonwealth was defeated by the Swedes and their Brandenburg Prussian allies and the situation looked very grim as other opponents also made significant advances. At this point the situation was transformed by politics and intrigue. Sweden soon got involved in the series of wars which were called the Second Northern War involving Denmark and other Western nations. While the opponents of the Commonwealth started fighting and intriguing amongst themselves.

[Hwiccee]

I am pleased to announce that 2 new scenarios are available for the Twilight of the Soldier Kings rules. A big thanks to Dennis and Darren for sorting this out for me. They are available here – https://www.wyrehistoricbooks.co.uk/catalogue/pdf-rules-scenarios

The new scenarios are:

Reichenberg: 21st April 1757
In the spring of 1757 the Prussian army invaded Austrian Bohemia in a number of columns. On April 21st one of these under the Duke of Brunswick-Bevern encountered an Austrian command under Count Konigsegg at Reichenberg which aimed to block the Prussian advanced. The result was the first major action of the 1757 campaign.

Reichenbach: 16th August 1762
In the closing stages of the war the Prussians were trying to retake the fortress of Schweidnitz. The Prussians had laid siege to the fortress and the Austrians decided to attack a vulnerable part of the siege lines to break the siege. Under the command of Lacy the Austrians planned to strike near Reichenbach to break the siege and on August 16th they struck.

[Hwiccee]

The second and third parts of the video on the mechanisms of the Twilight of the Sun King rules have been put online. The other rules in the series share similar mechanisms although the details vary.

Part 2:

Part 3:

[Hwiccee]

I didn’t do the videos but I will pass on the messages.

Guy Farrish: Yes he has done 3 now in total. I believe the guy who makes the video is going to do one featuring the mechanisms. There are some not by this guy that are on the mechanisms but they are a lot worse quality – https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGJTV26KVNRcSE-Qs_8vq5w/playlists

McKinstry: There should be a refight of Poltava at Sakute ths year, if it happens. It is in 6mm and with an 18 foot table!

[Hwiccee]

Tony,

OK I see where you are coming from now.

The earlier Polish (and Lithuanian) army didn’t have hussars in the sense you are talking about them. They might have mercenary/allied units. The supporting cavalry before the time of the Pancerni are usually called Polish Cossacks, this is a kind of cavalry and nothing much to do with actual Cossacks. These are cavalry which are a mixture of classic light horse and units using tactics similar to the ‘wave attacks’ I have talked about – these last could be armoured. The Polish Cossacks doing the light horse tactics were functionally more or less identical to hussars but they were never called this in the Polish-Lithuanian army.

In theory the difference in the Polish-Lithuanian army to other armies is that the Winged Hussars gave the option to put in ‘real’ charges into the mix. So the Polish Cossacks would soften up the target for the Winged Hussars to finish them off. Of course in practice this didn’t always happen or something else happened and & Winged Hussars would go in without preparation.

I am sure some of the Winged Hussars would have bows as there were minimum requirements for them but then it was up to the individual Hussar or unit commander what else they had. That said the use of bows generally was in steep decline at this time and once you get into the next era even ‘horse archers’ are actually using carbines & pistols and not bows. I don’t know for sure but by the end of the period you are looking at I would be surprised if any Polish-Lithuanian unit, include the Light Horse types, are still using bows as their main missile weapon. Similarly, I would expect all other armies to have at minimum significant numbers of firearms rather than bows – this includes the armies usually thought to be ‘traditional’.

On terminology here I think we are often victims of a ‘Western’ attitude/upbringing/focus of history and of course the errors in these things. I think the general view of cavalry tactics generally (sorry I am talking Europe and adjacent areas here) is flawed even about ‘Western’ tactics and has no idea about the ‘fringes’ from a Western point of view. Add onto that the things that are commonly done in gaming which are also flawed and many rules are not up to it.

 

[Hwiccee]

Tony,

OK 2 things before I go into details. The first is that I think DBR rules and similar have very little basis in history, often at a very basic level. So trying to do anything historical in them is going to be diffiuclt. I have played DBR but not Irregular Wars but I am talking about sets which have 2 ‘balanced’ sides using a mechanism like points or similar. The second thing is a lot of what follows is based more on the later period 1600 – 1700 but I believe there are similarities.

The first thing to say is you can forget Polish Pancerni. They start being used circa 1650 so won’t appear in your time period. You also need to separate Polish Winged Hussars from the Sipahi, Pomest’e and I think Steppe lancer types (this last had largely disappeared by my time). The Hussars and the other 3 are doing different things.

So the first thing is that the overwhelming majority of battles were attack/defence battles often featuring positions that couldn’t be easily ‘charged’. In the context of this discussion these battles often involved attacking or defending ‘portable’ defenses – wagons, gulay gorod, etc – and fortified camps. Also real battles are generally fought on terrain nothing like typical wargames terrain in these kinds of rules.  In real battles, as opposed to most wargames, bow, firearms or other missiles were useful things for the cavalry to have & got used. I don’t know about your period but in the later period it is difficult to find battles where cavalry wouldn’t in theory need to shoot because of the above – although later on it tended to be more firearms than bows.

Shooting was also a viable tactic when confronting infantry in ‘the East’ because of the generally lower relative firepower of the infantry there.

As far as tactics against mounted cavalry are concerned the Polish Winged Hussars were basically shock tactic cavalry when the army was attacking. Fire would be relatively unimportant but perhaps could be used more when defending. Polish Winged Hussars effectively ‘invented’ what we normally think of as a cavalry charge.

Sipahi and Pomest’e cavalry (and probably the Steppe guys) are not as you suggest charging cavalry as such. They were more of a multi-purpose cavalry who combined firing and moving into contact. When the army was attacking the Sipahi and Pomest’e would go forward in fairly loose waves aiming to cause the target to falter, break formation or something similar. This would include getting the target to break ranks and abandon their position with the kind of ‘sudden charge’ by the defender you talk about – that is close to suicidal against these tactics. If it did cause a falter/break/etc the attackers would individually use their mobilty and horsemanship to exploit this. It was not a ‘charge’ as such, more a move into contact to exploit a situation & a lot of the time only some proportion of the attackers would actually engage at all.

Commonly this wave attack wouldn’t cause any problems in the target and so the attackers would not ‘charge home’ and would instead convert the attack into a ‘feint attack’, shoot at the target and break off to try again. Usually another wave of attackers would be incoming by this time and the use of multiple waves was common. So the fire by the attacking cavalry was more designed to make the target falter/break/counter-attack so the succeeding waves can exploit these or have a better chance of doing them themselves. i.e. it wasn’t designed to actually ‘kill’ the target but to make it vulnerable to further attacks. Often these wave attacks would go over long periods.

In defence these cavalry would fire at the incoming attacks to break them up. They might do what we think of a ‘charge’ against weak targets and of course if the wave attacks succeeded something like a ‘charge’ would happen when the target was so fractured most/all of the attackers would go into contact.

I am not sure I have explained it very well but hopefully that will give you some kind of idea.

[Hwiccee]

Yes and given the uncertainty about what they looked like I went for how they looked like in the late 17th century so I could build up a Polish army for 1683 Vienna era.

[Hwiccee]

Ricey,

Yes maybe on Haiduks. They are basically a 16th century troop type whose use was declining all the way through the 17th century. They were something like 5% of the Polish infantry in the 1680’s.

In the GNW the Poles and Lithuanians are very divided and basically fighting a civil war. They also got involved relatively late on. Both of these meant they barely had enough infantry to even garrison their fortresses and none of the armies had an adequate infantry contingent. Polish-Lithuanian tactics relied on good support from a considerable body of infantry, particularly against foreign armies, and they just didn’t get this in the war.

 

[Hwiccee]

Hi again,

Some how the part of my post on ‘German’ infantry got jumbled.

This part – “We basically have no idea which but perhaps they would have looked like the links early on and like ‘Western’  units later. Ditto on what they were armed with. Most likely with muskets and pike early on and going to muskets only later. We have no idea on colours of the uniform, flags or indeed anything.” – should be after the part on German infantry.

So it should read –

Ok so during this period the Polish-Lithuanian forces had 2 kinds of infantry – ‘German’ and ‘Hungarian’- the Hungarians are sometimes called Haiduk. Both types were actually composed of Poles-Lithuanians. There is basically no information on what these looked like or indeed were equipped with.

Haiduks were just armed with muskets while the ‘Germans’ probably had musket and pike or possibly two handed axe. The best guess is that the Haiduks still looked something like this – https://www.models2u.co.uk/contents/en-uk/p6864_polish-infantry-mercenaries-haiduk-.html

But that is a complete guess and note that this was about 100 years before the GNW.

The ‘German’ infantry either looked like standard Western infantry of the time – i.e. like the Saxons. Alternatively they may have looked like they did in the earlier era –   http://www.jasinski.co.uk/wojna/develop/Pics/1683%20musketeer.jpg and  http://www.jasinski.co.uk/wojna/develop/Pics/1683%20pikeman.jpg

We basically have no idea which but perhaps they would have looked like the links early on and like ‘Western’  units later. Ditto on what they were armed with. Most likely with muskets and pike early on and going to muskets only later. We have no idea on colours of the uniform, flags or indeed anything

Now the reason we know very little about the infantry in the GNW is because they basically didn’t have any or only a few. About 3 out of 4 Polish-Lithuanian armies had no infantry at all. Even the armies that had them we are talking a maximum of 10% of the army and usually mostly ‘German’ style infantry. The ‘largest’ number of infantry in a Polish-Lithuanian army I have seen is 1200 in an army of 10,000 – the other side was also 10,000 men and had no infantry. All the infantry there were German. The largest group of ‘Hungarians’ I have seen is 200 men & most armies with infantry had none.

So the maximum infantry every used was circa 2 ‘normal’ sized battalions with perhaps a company/half battalion of Hungarians as part of this. You should have 10 to 100 cavalry units for each infantry you have.

It is worth saying that Polish-Lithuanian dragoons still regularly got off their horses and fought on foot. There numbers varied greatly but perhaps around 10% as an average. Finally remember the Poles-Lithuanians often fought with the Saxons, Russians or Swedes and basically the other armies provided the infantry.

 

[Hwiccee]

Ricey,

Ok so during this period the Polish-Lithuanian forces had 2 kinds of infantry – ‘German’ and ‘Hungarian’- the Hungarians are sometimes called Haiduk. Both types were actually composed of Poles-Lithuanians. There is basically no information on what these looked like or indeed were equipped with.

Haiduks were just armed with muskets while the ‘Germans’ probably had musket and pike or possibly two handed axe. The best guess is that the Haiduks still looked something like this – https://www.models2u.co.uk/contents/en-uk/p6864_polish-infantry-mercenaries-haiduk-.html

But that is a complete guess and note that this was about 100 years before the GNW.

The ‘German’ infantry either looked like standard Western infantry of the time – i.e. like the Saxons. Alternatively they may have looked like they did in the earlier era –   http://www.jasinski.co.uk/wojna/develop/Pics/1683%20musketeer.jpg and http://www.jasinski.co.uk/wojna/develop/Pics/1683%20pikeman.jpg

Now the reason we know very little about the infantry in the GNW is because they basically didn’t have any or only a few. About 3 out of 4 Polish-Lithuanian armies had no infantry at all. Even the armies that had them we are talking a maximum of 10% of the army and usually mostly ‘German’ style infantry. The ‘largest’ number of infantry in a Polish-Lithuanian army I have seen is 1200 in an army of 10,000 – the other side was also 10,000 men and had no infantry. All the infantry there were German. The largest group of ‘Hungarians’ I have seen is 200 men & most armies with infantry had none.

So the maximum infantry every used was circa 2 ‘normal’ sized battalions with perhaps a company/half battalion of Hungarians as part of this. You should have 10 to 100 cavalry units for each infantry you have.

It is worth saying that Polish-Lithuanian dragoons still regularly got of their horses and fought on foot. There numbers varied greatly but perhaps around 10% as an average. Finally remember the Poles-Lithuanians often fought with the Saxons, Russians or Swedes and basically the other armies provided the infantry.

Nick

 

We basically have no idea which but perhaps they would have looked like the links early on and like ‘Western’  units later. Ditto on what they were armed with. Most likely with muskets and pike early on and going to muskets only later. We have no idea on colours of the uniform, flags or indeed anything.

[Hwiccee]

Hi all,

Two new scenarios are now available.

These are the battles of Bergen and Kunersdorf both in 1759. The first is a battle between the French and ‘British’ army. The second features the Prussians fighting a combined Russian and Austrian army.

They are available from https://www.wyrehistoricbooks.co.uk/catalogue/pdf-rules-scenarios

[Hwiccee]

A tricky question and it depends on what exactly you are after.

In the WSS in Spain the Spanish/Catalan allies had Miquelets – this is from 1705 to 1712. They were not raised or employed by Britain & didn’t fight in actual battles but might have operated together in sieges and skirmishes.

In the WAS then British were often operating with the Austrians who of course had lots of Grenzers/Croats with them. But again they were not really raised/employed by Britain.

If you don’t count the above I would say the first are in the SYW. All the Germans (Hanover, Hessse Kassel, Brunswick) that made the majority of the ‘British army’ in German had jagers and similar and they were arguably ’employed’ by Britain. In addition there was a unit called the Legion Britannique which was raised by Hanover but I think paid for directly by Britain and was kind of a light unit – it was basically rubbish so it is difficult to tell 🙂 Finally there was an ad hoc unit called Fraser’s Chasseurs which was made up of selected personnel/volunteers from the ‘Line’ units fighting in Germany. It operated in a group called Cavendish’s Chasseurs which had 1 unit of ‘jagers’ from each of the 4 main contingents in the army in Germany.

In the SYW the first ‘proper’ British light units were raised and fought in America. After the war more were raised.

[Hwiccee]

Great I am glad you like them 🙂

[Hwiccee]

🙂

[Hwiccee]

Willz: That is good. Hopefully you will be tempted to try them in a few games.

[Hwiccee]

Thaddeus Blanchette wrote:

What do Rerby’s Fanatics believe in? This is for Black Powder, right?

This is for the Twilight of the Sun King rules.

On Repet Rerby’s fanatics I suggest you look into Baccus miniatures & the views of the owner.

In this they believe that the ‘scales of life’ have tipped in Denswe’s favour, although of course there is also a double meaning.

 

 

[Hwiccee]

Whirlwind: You will have to speed up your games. We have some more scenario books on the way 🙂

Nathaniel: OK good. If you are interested there is already another TYW scenario book and one with ECW battles.

[Hwiccee]

Whirlwind: Thanks for another great AAR. I will post on your blog as well 🙂

Guy Farrish: I think it is worth pointing out that White Mountain is quite unusual in the number of light horse that were there. Most TYW have a lot less but the battles do have quite a lot of cavalry.

[Hwiccee]

OK Guy and happy gaming. Get in touch if I can help with anything.

Nick

[Hwiccee]

Guy,

Thanks for a great AAR and an interesting scenario.  I am glad you seem to enjoy the rules.

I thought I would clear up a few points and make some suggestions.

On the pursuit Whirlwind is correct. The breakthrough pursuit is a one-off move and then the unit can act as normal. Of course the unit will be facing the wrong way and likely to be out of command range & a long way from the action. So probably it is going to be a while before the unit can do anything else.

On the multiple ranks of support the thing to remember is in the game it is a morale test and not a melee or whatever you are testing for. So the 2nd line gives you support, ie they are potentially helping with whatever the from rank is doing. The other ranks are just scaring the hell out of the target. The other thing to bear in mind is you will rarely get a chance to stack up that many units. It is going to be very rare in the ECW/TYW where the battles are relatively small but in the larger later post TYW battles and battles against the Ottomans. In general it tends to be used when one side is outnumbered  and in a fortified position. The other side then might assault part of the line with a deep formation to try to crack it. Basically using the extra troops they have to do this.  So you should find it will be rare in ECW/TYW games but more common in later games. But you could maybe use it for something like the storming of Bristol in the ECW.

On the river/stream thing I would recommend using action tests for them. Remember it can take more than 1 to do something and also you can combine it with ‘Bad going’. So obviously you could have a river/stream that just takes 1 action test to cross. But also you could for example have 1 to enter the river and a second to leave. It could be 1 to enter, 1 to cross to the other side and a 3rd to leave. You could also combine this idea with ‘bad going’. For example often rivers have a marshy area on one or both sides. So that could be ‘bad going’ and the actual river an action test to cross.

I also noticed you are interested in Marlburian battles. In case you don’t know the 1st set of rules in this series covers Marlborough’s era – it is called Twilight of the Sun King. There is also a 3rd set called Twilight of the Soldier Kings which is for SYW time. Finally you might be interested to know there is a 2nd set of TYW scenarios on the way, including some from the same kind of era your game is. It is being sent to the printer this week but there might be a delay in printing, because of the current crisis. It will have the following battles –

Wimpfen – 6th May 1622 1
Hochst – 20th June 1622 3
Crossing the Lech – 15th April 1632 5
Lützen – 16th November 1632 7
1st Nordlingen – 6th September 1634 9
Wittenweier – 9th August 1638 11
Honnecourt – 26th May 1642 13
2nd Breitenfeld – 2nd November 1642 15
Rocroi – 19th May 1643 17
2nd Lleida (Lérida) – 15th May 1644 19
Freiburg – 3rd & 5th August 1644 21
Rochetta Tanaro – 23rd September 1653 (Franco-Spanish War) 24
Valenciennes – 16th July 1656 (Franco-Spanish War) 25
Dunes – 14th June 1658 (Franco-Spanish War) 27
Ameixial – 8th June 1663 (Portuguese Restoration War) 29

I hope this helps,

Nick

[Hwiccee]

Guy,

You can never have enough figures 🙂

Seriously remember that in the rules you can use any number of figures/base size as a unit. So perhaps start with ‘small’ units and build up?

I have a secret to getting things done, I let others do it instead of me. The upcoming scenarios are by my colleague Iain Stanford, I just get the pleasure of fighting them 🙂

[Hwiccee]

I look forward to seeing your blog on this.

Yes on Wiki and it would be interesting to know what they got wrong with the Comanche. The problem with them is they often cite good sources, they cite the book you recommended, but you don’t know if they have actually used them.

[Hwiccee]

Guy: In that case I have more potentially ‘bad’ news. More Divine Right scenarios covering the period after the TYW are on the way. So get painting 🙂

[Hwiccee]

They might have, and it is might, had a similar culture in the days when the Tatars were a minor tribe involved in the Mongol invasions 500 years before this. They then spent around 250 years helping to run a major empire before taking full control of their own empire which was around 250 years old around this time. During these times they were living in cities/town, building palaces/mosques and similar. By circa 1700 they were a more or less standard state, in the Ottoman mould rather than a ‘Western’ one. Any ‘horse/hunting culture’ was a distant memory as was being a ‘steppe’ people as we would usually think of it.

With respect to the Comanches and their time/area they were maybe a big fish in a very small isolated and backward pond. I am relying on Wikipedia here which is probably wrong in the details but it is clear from that we are talking a relatively small group who were ‘powerful’ in a very isolated and underdeveloped area but insignificant by any other measure. According to Wiki they peaked in around 1840. In that year the Comanches did their ‘Great Raid’. This was circa 400 warriors fighting against the state of Texas when it was independent. They Comanches killed 41 people, burned a few small towns and stole lots of firearms, one wonders why they did this if they thought they were useless. They were then trashed by circa 200 Texans in from what I can see was the Comanches largest battle, they might have had 1000 people at that but probably a lot less actual warriors.

In contrast, the Tatars were in decline around circa 1700. Up until the end of the war of 1699 they had been doing annual raids on the heartland of major powers like Poland and Russia. In these they often enslaved more people each year than in the whole Comanche nation. They burnt, captured, looted major cities and had the potential to destroy large well organised states. It was only in this kind of era, circa 1680, that they had declined far enough to have dropped out of being a big fish in a big pond. In 1711 the declining field army was said to be 100,000 men but was probably more like 40,000 to 50,000 – i.e. about 1000 times bigger than the Comanches at their peak.

Maybe the Comanche did like bows rather than firearms, I couldn’t find anything on that but then I don’t have particularly good sources. Maybe that was because they thought that bows were better than firearms, although I would want to know more about the reasons why they thought this and the reality of their situation, in the circumstances they found themselves in. But that doesn’t change the fact that the vast majority of light cavalry rejected bows and switched to firearms as soon as they could. The main block on them doing that being availability of the guns themselves, but also gunpowder and other ‘logistic’ factors. This could be rationalised by ‘bows being better’. I would not be surprised if some isolated district of the Tatar area also just fielded say 500 archers, the kind of strength of the Comanche ‘army’ for the same/similar reasons as the reasons Comanches kept bows. That doesn’t mean the other 40,000 plus members of the Tatar field army didn’t favour firearms for whatever reason.

Similarly I would guess you are right that some of the Bashkirs would have firearms and I have no idea what they were armed with in Napoleon’s time. They were, and also reportedly still are, a very persecuted group and heavily subjugated back then at least. They look to have been a lot stronger than the Comanche, they appear to be around 10,000 in 1812, but they were facing a lot stronger opposition & had lost any choice they might have on weapons, etc.

[Hwiccee]

Thanks for a great battle report.

The good or perhaps bad news is the 2nd TYW scenario book for the Twilight of Divine Right rules will be available soon. It has 15 more scenarios 🙂

[Hwiccee]

OB,

I would be very careful going down the ‘their culture is similar’ route. Even if this was true, which it almost certainly wasn’t, a whole host of other factors are going to make such comparisons meaningless & have frequently led people down wrong paths.

The Tatars were a power at this time, heirs to an even greater state, and the close ally of a ‘superpower’. They were a relatively rich, organised large state and had easy access to firearms, gunpowder, etc. The Bashkirs and Comanches were isolated relatively poor, relatively small groups with little resources and no significant allies. I know what I would look at to explain why the Bashkirs and Comanches (assuming they did) stuck with bows.

I think the Tatars continued to train as mounted skirmishers right the way through but to put a date on when they switched from bows is more difficult. Going by impressions only the light horse of this part of the world started to get reasonable numbers of firearms by circa 1600 and switched by circa 1650. But of course with many exceptions.

[Hwiccee]

The whole relative effectiveness of bow and firearms is a complicated issue but I think one that was basically answered around 100 years before this time.

The Bashkirs were in almost continuous revolt at this time and barely trusted with anything dangerous when not in revolt. Also I don’t think that they are in the same kind of league as the Tatars. The Tatars were a big power in the area and had only a few years before this era raid far into Russia every year.

I have idea on the Comanche but again I don’t think they are in the same kind of league as the Tatars. They are also, of course, a long way from the area and in a completely different set of circumstances. Any comparison is meaningless.

I am sure that some Tatars would have bows as well. Some people were wandering around Normandy in 1944 with swords, bows and all sorts. Similar the LDF (Dad’s army) were equipped with kitchen knives on broom handles and similar. That doesn’t mean that the standard armament in WW2 wasn’t bolt action rifles, SMG, etc.

As a general rule at this time good troops used firearms. Rubbish troops and troops from isolated areas used bows, until they could get firearms. The Tatars were a large rich power with a good army.

[Hwiccee]

It wouldn’t bother me too much but Tatars at the time of the GNW are not using bow. They would be armed with pistols & carbines or similar.

[Hwiccee]

There is a map in ‘Famous by my Sword’ by Singleton. In short the Government forces are on higher ground on a more or less open battlefield. To their right is a wooded area and to their left a village.

[Hwiccee]

OK I see what you mean by medieval and depending on what scale figures you are using you may have to go ‘medieval’ to build the armies. Unfortunately this is not too much what the armies would look like then,

The Polish hussars could still have lances but they actually really fought with swords & pistols. Lances were actually banned in the later part of the Vienna war. I think that most hussars would still have lances as a kind of status symbol but not many would actually use them in action in 1683. But it can be tricky finding Winged Hussars without lances and well they do look fantastic with lances. So all mine have lances 🙂

For the Ottomans it was basically the same. All the good troops used sword & pistols in action and only ‘backward’ contingents from the fringes would still use lances. I used this to help identify units. All my Sipahi had lances but I cut many of them down to represent swords or pistols. For the ‘elite’ units I did this to all the figures. For the’average’ units I did it for most but left a few lances and for the few ‘raw’ units I left most with lances.

There would be a lot of armour around if only because all the Western units would have it! Most of the ‘Eastern’ types were no longer wearing it or wore lighter versions than in the past and underneath their clothes. But again it can be difficult to get figures that look like this.

I sort of agree on the musket thing in that the greater use of flintlocks by the Western units meant that they had probably reached parity with the Ottoman Janissaries.

In any case keep painting and I hope to see some pictures of them at some point.

[Hwiccee]

We regularly play the 1683 era but with the ‘Twilight of the Sun King’ rules, not this set. The Sun King rules cover the 9YW, GNW and WSS but also the Ottoman wars. So we use them for the war of the 1680’s & 90’s. Also the war against the Russians in 1711 and the Austrians again in 1714-18.

I am not sure I would agree that 1683 was very much like the medieval era but I guess that depends on what you mean by that?

You do need a set that treats the armies like the real armies and not like standard armies. This can apply to all the armies involved as some rules I have seen clearly have no idea what the ‘Western’ forces are like and their treatment of the Ottomans, Poles and other ‘Eastern’ types is often a joke. The Ottoman army in particular is tricky to get right but not particularly out of date. It is declining and so we have found the Kahlenberg battle itself a bit disappointing, the Ottomans don’t really have much chance in it.

In any case I hope you get to play the era sometime. It is fun to do.

[Hwiccee]

Nothing wrong with that period 🙂 The earlier sets do actually cover this era but different conflicts from this time are probably better done with the different sets. So most are probably best done with the Divine right set but some will be better with the Sun King set. It is the same story with the gap between the Sun King and Soldier Kings.

[Author]

Posts