Newbury 1643

The First Battle of Newbury

This is just a snapshot of the ‘League of Historical Gamers’/WAR English Civil War game at Warfare 2011 (Reading, Rivermead Centre).

I’m posting it for a few reasons.

I have decided the next proper project will be the 1644 Battle of Newbury – and have tentatively offered it to the Pike & Shot Society for Colours 2012 … Inevitably that leads from considering the Newbury fights and deciding that 1644 offered more interest and less complication.

Also, some might argue it leads directly to the 1645 campaign and the New Model, and so dovetails with my Naseby project.

Chatting to the presenters, they thought 1644 too complex and sprawling, and that a battle in amongst all those allotments would be much easier to do …  Makes you think.

I also commented back in January that FoG-R, Field of Glory Renaissance, would be an interesting addition to the rules stable and that I wondered to what extent we would see it being used to do historical battles and show games …  well, not much, but this was one.

Of course I also wondered about scale – and all those new 28mm figures.   Well this wasn’t just 15mm, it was venerable 15mm (Minifigs strips, just like the ones Steve lent me for the Naseby project: you have to say people got very good value when they bought those figures) …

Talking to the Historical Gamers, their reconstruction was in part based on joining Chris Scott for a battlefield walk at Newbury … where, of course, all those hedges have been cleared.   An interesting touchstone.  I, too, would recommend joining one of the many Battlefields Trust walks as a beginning to understanding the jigsaw of these ECW battles.

Ironically, at Naseby the mental exercise is looking at a landscape patchworked with hedges and imagining them not there; at Newbury the challenge is reversed and you have to build them back in.

I think you will agree they did a good job.  I found the terrain for this game fascinating.   You’d have to say there is a case for using a squared game for this battle rather than FoG’s measured movement.

More on the Reading show

Wargames Association of Reading link

Battlefields Trust

Pike & Shot Society

Bringing history to life …

Instead of a regular Thursday night’s wargaming, I took the Naseby reconstruction to Kettering Art Gallery as the supporting act to Will’s introduction to wargaming ‘Chess with 100 Pieces’ … one of the Friends of Kettering Museum and Gallery‘s series of talks.

My part of the presentation was to contribute something on using wargames and model soldiers to recreate significant battles from history.   All the better, of course, that the battle I’ve most been working on recently is only some 10 miles west of the town.

Naseby Fight in full swing

Of course, the toy soldiers will always work their magic, drawing in people of all types and ages with their imaginative appeal.   To this we can add details of the 1645 campaign that show Kettering and the surrounding towns and villages on the front line between Royalist and Parliament.

The King’s headquarters were at Market Harborough, just a few miles from the Parliamentarian garrison at re-fortified Rockingham Castle.    Hard by, troops fighting for the King were billeted in Desborough and Rushton, and are reported plundering in Weekley and Burton Latimer, and requisitioning horses.

There was skirmishing and facing-off around the strong points of Rockingham and Northampton, but the troopers roamed freely in the villages between them.

In a leisurely Q&A that followed the general talk (when, needless to say, we encouraged visitors to gather round the displays, pick up the figures etc.) I walked the game through the battle’s main manoeuvres.   There were some interesting questions on how the mechanisms broke the reconstruction down into game turns … and of the historical events, why the issue seems to have been settled by hand-to-hand combat, given the majority appeared to have been equipped with firearms and cannon?

Attention of this sort – as well as the fact that people didn’t just melt away when the formal presentations were done – can be very gratifying.   It shows people are following the story and it cues the more detailed responses on 17th century warfare and on wargames mechanisms.

It also highlights the effect landscape can have on great events … and so, inevitably, the value of visiting battlefields like Naseby, the need for preservation and the work of the Naseby Project and of the Battlefields Trust.

Friends chat over a DBA version of the battle of Zama: maybe the topic is ancient warfare ...

Inevitably, some will know more about the Civil War and Naseby than others: towards the end I was asked what I thought about the ‘will you go upon your death’ moment.

Would the King advancing the reserve at the critical moment (rather than being guided away from the place of danger) have prevented Cromwell closing in on the infantry on Closter Hill (and, so, maybe saved the day)? – or would it, indeed, have been a forlorn venture leading inevitably to his death or capture on a field already lost?

Had we time, we could have played it through.   It is clearly what Rupert thought should have been done.   And we can certainly reconstruct it in the wargame.

King Charles and the Reserve

(Naseby: “Will you go upon your death in an instant?”… the King must make his vital choice)

As a Romantic, I would rather have been killed in a heroic action at Naseby than lose my head branded a traitor by a rebel court in London!  Better still to buy sufficient time in an action against Cromwell to allow the battle to be won on the hill (and history clearly indicates that the King’s army had been victorious on the right and was making potentially decisive progress in the centre).

History turns on such moments, and it is a great privilege to be able to bring those moments alive for people.

The proceeds of the event have been donated to the Naseby Battlefield Project and we hope that some of the leaflets and contacts given out may garner more support – perhaps both for model soldier hobbies and for local military heritage.

Some local colour …

This is just tying up the latest work on the Naseby Battlefield collection.  Mostly visual enhancements and local colour …

I tidied up the Forlorn Hopes and Attached Shot (they have been masquerading as finished for a while but have not had their bases done etc.) …(Mostly Minifigs, Matchlock and Piggies deployed as (double frontage) ‘SI’)

I also provided the long-awaited horseholders and proper mounted versions for the New Model Dragoons:

…although I think I will need to double the number of stands in the mounted regiment better to represent the numbers.   I also decided is was about time I based up some Firelocks specifically to create a ring around the artillery train …These work extremely well, and I am very pleased.  I think a little column of the ring bases would look fine moving along roads and such-like … so although they are basically a Naseby vignette, I think they are generally going to be useful … (they follow Streeter’s depiction, of course) ..

Some Equipment for the Firelocks to Guard

(that magnificent gun – too big to be deployed on the battlefield, of course (see Streeter) – is by Donnington Miniatures)

Also in the Parliamentarian rear areas (see Streeter, by the windmill*) …

Onlookers from the village of Naseby

(Peter Pig WA civilians around a woman from  PP’s Pirate range)

And a Parliamentarian interpretation of the kind of ladies you would find in the Royalist rear areas …(a Thistle and Rose harlot plus some adapted Peter Pig figures)

To make the display easier to understand for enthusiasts who have visited the battlefield, I created a couple of markers to locate prominent modern features on the terrain

Naseby Battlefield visitor markers

The Cromwell Monument marker is used to locate the point (just in front of where Montague’s Regiment deployed) where todays monument stands.   Will’s Nettlepatch marks the position behind the hedge (just about the position of Hardress Waller’s Regiment) where Will famously dived into headlong into the nettles on the 2010 Battlefields Trust walk …  With these two positions marked it should be clear how the model soldier version related to the battlefield today.

To finish, here’s a line up of the tidied-up artillery pieces

*so like this perhaps …

Naseby Q & A (summer 2011)

Naseby: phase one - the King's army on the move ...

With a couple of public outings on consecutive weekends, there have been a number of interesting questions I feel I could have answered more informatively.   Given a bit more time, here’s what I would have liked to have had at my fingertips …

Q: When was the Cromwell Monument erected?

A: 1936

Q: What were the total casualties at Naseby*

*perversely, although I had casualty figures for individual New Model regiments (Foard gives these in his analysis of the fighting on Closter Hill), I didn’t really have the battle totals in the front of my mind at all.

A: Royalist losses are put at 700 – 1,000 dead, 4 – 5,000 taken prisoner (Foard: 5,500) and around 80 standards and colours.  Parliamentarian losses appear to be 100 – 150 killed and just over 500 wounded.

Analysing the figures, Foard, of course, points out that they mean around three-quarters of the King’s army were killed or captured on the field.  Given that records show the rest, fleeing or wounded, dispersed through Northamptonshire and Leicestershire, it means, in any useful sense, that the King’s army was annihilated on the 14th of June.

Martin Marix Evans helped me deal with this topic at Festival of History.  Martin reckons the terrain contributed significantly to the high ratio of surrendered to killed …  He puts the case convincingly that horses are unwilling to charge across the lines of the ‘ridge and furrow’ cultivation of open field agriculture (and we know that – like nearly all battles of the period – Naseby was fought along the grain rather than across it): he believes, therefore, that Cromwell’s Horse were only able to close in cautiously on the backs of the Royalist Foot, allowing time for the massed surrender.   A proper charge, he observes, would have caused carnage.

Q:  Where was Henry Ireton from?

A:  Attenborough in Nottinghamshire.

He studied at Oxford and went to the Bar.  He joined the Parliamentarians at Edgehill.   Naseby was his first experience commanding at such a high level.  A year after the battle, he married Cromwell’s daughter.   Later, he signed the King’s death warrant.   In one of English history’s more shameful and macabre episodes, his was one of the three bodies exhumed and posthumously hung, drawn and quartered for regicide (Cromwell, Ireton and Bradshaw).  Ireton Road addresses probably do refer to the Henry Ireton of this period.

Parliament's senior officers at Naseby

Q: How likely were the senior Officers to get killed in these battles?*

*both a question asked at Festival of History, and an obvious issue arising out of Cromwell getting killed in the COW refight …

A: My instinctive answer was that being wounded was quite common, getting killed less common but always a risk.    Looking over the period in less of a hurry, I can see … Earl Lindsey killed at Edgehill; the Earl of Northampton at Hopton Heath; John Hampden at Chalgrove; Grenville at Lansdown; Cavendish at Grantham; Aston at Drogheda, Tyldesley at Wigan Lane.  I’m sure there are others.  So, quite a few (and some notables), though clearly not that common.

What was apparent from flicking through Richard Brooks’s very useful ‘Cassell’s Battlefields of Britain and Ireland’ is that just as common an outcome of combat in this period was being taken prisoner.   Depending on the outcome of the battle, sometimes that might lead to subsequent execution, but at Naseby the surrender of the King’s army meant Ireton ended up taking prisoner his own captor (so it was a status that could reverse by the end of the battle).

I will need to adjust the ‘lost in combat’ outcomes table of my ECW Armati variant to reflect the likelihood of surviving but being taken prisoner.

I must also correct my reference to Philip Skippon being shot in the leg.  Ireton, it was, that had taken a leg wound – and from a pike (and also a halberd in the face).  Skippon’s very serious bullet wound was through the back, from stomach to shoulder.  Even at the time this was put down as likely friendly fire (a ‘hang fire’ Marix Evans speculates) …  He was taken to nearby Brixworth, but could not be moved thence for another fortnight.

On the beat again

Ending a busy week for the little men in the Naseby game, I was invited by the Battlefields Trust to include the display as part of the Battlefields Trust/Naseby Project zone at English Heritage’s Festival of History.

A great believer in the power of toy soldiers to inspire and inform interest in military history, I leapt at the chance.   By Monday morning I had almost lost my voice, it had been worked so hard over the weekend.   Friends will know that is no small statement (I am more than happy to talk about military – and many other – topics … I can be prolific and it takes a lot to wear me out!) …

Friday afternoon: setting up in the 'Pavillion' tent

The public graciously listened, even asked follow-up questions, as I pushed the little men from key position to key position demonstrating how tactics, decisions and sheer fortune determined the outcome of what became a key battle in English history.  The key battle, many of us think.

The weekend also exposed my knowledge of the battle to an engagingly random series of questions: you start these events with an idea of what people find interesting, and confident in what you know.  Then, when people start asking questions, you find out what you don’t know.  And often they are good questions …

The Battlefields Trust: a popular attraction, even when the sun was out ...

I’m going to add a Naseby Q & A when I’ve completed this post … and answer some questions I wasn’t clear about on the day.   A reward, perhaps, for anyone earnest enough to follow-up and visit these pages.

I must say that I never claim an encyclopaedic knowledge, and always make sure I have reference books handy to help with information.  But as we all know, finding key paragraphs quickly is often less than easy.

Just visiting: some Covenanters looking at home in Northamptonshire ...

The Naseby corner, and healthy public interest kept me busy for most of the weekend, but there are some photos from the event on my other blogs (Ancients on the Move and P.B.Eye-Candy) and loads more if you image search Festival of  History 2011.

Heirs to the New Model: British infantry through history

Conference of Wargamers

Quite a treat, this year …

As I have said earlier, we had arranged that the ‘something to do on Friday afternoon’ (for early travellers) would be a visit to Naseby battlefield.  So, additionally, I booked-in a refight of the battle as part of the weekend programme.   Many thanks to Tim for that Sunday morning slot (it meant I was able to set the game up, once the room was vacated, the night before) …

WD walkers visit the Naseby Obelisk

We visited the battlefield in the rain.

It was an English summer’s afternoon and it showed us little mercy.   We were grateful to Graham Evans for providing laminated copies of Streeter and the OS map.    We didn’t have sufficient dry weather to do much more than the monuments, the long distance recce from the ‘Fairfax Viewpoint’ and a wet exploration of Broadmoor.

Nevertheless, I think visitors got a valuable impression of the position Fairfax and Cromwell chose for the New Model Army, and the ground over which the battle was fought.  I also hope that I was able to help explain the transition of the landscape … from, then, traditional ‘strip’ farmed open fields, to, now, small enclosed fields with hedgerows …

Despite the weather, there has been some good feed back from the visit and I am grateful to people for that.

Naseby: a full house for the Sunday morning game

The Sunday morning refight used the evolving ‘Armati Intro’ system explained on the accompanying pages.   The last few times I have not bothered with fatigue rules and I am slack on policing manoeuvre (neither of which seem to make much difference in non-competitive games … willing players don’t really ‘try it on’ that much)*.   With those simplifications, we got a multiplayer game (with army BPs of 9 and 10!) played to a natural conclusion within 2 hours (including introductions).  Yes, I pushed the pace along – but I think it was worth it.

The game itself rattled along quite plausibly – however things went badly for the Royalist right flank from the start: Okey’s men did some damage, and attempts by Prince Maurice to rally on the move were less than successful.  So Ireton’s front line charged in to exploit this, and though some were broken by the impetus of those Royalists that were not disordered, some headway was also made.  Even by game end, the battle for this flank was not clearly won by either side.  Such was not in Rupert’s plan.

In the infantry struggle on Closter Hill, Astley’s Tertia never made the headway of its historical counterparts and was progressively reduced then broken by Skippon and Hardress Waller.  The same could not be said for the other end of the line, where the fortunes of war favoured Bard and Lisle.   Fairfax’s, Montague’s and Pickering’s regiments were all under pressure … Rainsborough’s was sent in to shore up the line – despite which Montague’s broke and headed for home.

Naseby: the end draws near

(click on the image for a better view)

On Parliament’s right, the slower paced melee over the rabbit warrens created its own dramas.   Langdale was unhorsed twice, dusting himself down after the first action and rejoining the fray.   Despite the exchange of blows going predominantly in favour of Parliament, Cromwell, too, fell victim … then, to everyone’s surprise, when the body was discovered there was no life in it and that greatest of gentlemen was dead.  Although Parliament eventually won the day, English history would have had a very different tone.

Rupert spent most of this game at his command post alongside the King (rather than micro managing his cavalry with Maurice on the right).  This enabled the reserves to move more determinedly up into support.  Initially, these moves were intended to cover the fortunes of the infantry on Closter Hill … however the return of some of Cromwell’s cavalry threatened to outflank the King’s division which consequently was forced to drop back again.

With worrying losses on both flanks, with Astley’s Tertia routed and the King withdrawing, the Royalist army’s resolve gave way and the day was lost.  In the final analysis, an interesting position: although King’s army was defeated and he was caught still on the battlefield, Cromwell, his most determined adversary had been killed in the action.  One can only speculate whether the other leaders would have had the same mettle without Cromwell’s sense of destiny.

Naseby: Cromwell is found in the aftermath of melee

For those interested, of course, Cromwell’s demise though always a risk was never likely.  As a game mechanism, his higher FV cavalry need to lose a round of melee with him in the fight … then the Royalist player need to roll a 6 to hit him … then, following my system, we roll a die for him after the melee to see how he is recovered (and he needs higher than 1 to be a survivor of some kind).

Nevertheless, I will continue to look at casualty rates and mortality to ensure there is a proper balance.

*I have no issue with using the fatigue rules in more detailed games, though I do think a slightly relaxed approach to the manoeuvre rules might benefit the game in general (especially as applied to light troops) …

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Also at COW, Chris James presented his game ‘We are All Englishmen‘, an engagingly anecdotal approach to the period with special effects each turn from bible-bashing vicars to the ghost of Rupert’s dog.

We are All Englishmen

There were quite a number of interesting features in Chris’s game, and a number more raised by the players as the encounter progressed – and I think everyone liked the little special effects that gave some period colour to the proceedings.  I will include a glimpse of the ghost of Boye, a see-through image that might temporarily shatter the resolve of those more superstitious Parliamentarians who saw it.

‘Hokum’, I think the film reviewers call it!

Shh - it's only a poodle (Boye makes a ghostly appearance)

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Throughout, COW was its usual mix of serious inquiry, historical wargaming … role play, experiment and silliness.

I would commend WD’s annual weekend to everyone.  In addition to my own GitS and Naseby games, I got to play in the big Roman game, WW2, naval (Fletcher Pratt) and even stuck one on Michael Wittmann at Villers Bocage!

For a more general view of COW, see my Ancients on the Move report, or more on the modern stuff on P.B.Eye-Candy …

As for the silliness I mentioned …

Sulby/Lantford/Archwrong – which is right?

a newly accessible view of the battlefield

So, on the eve of the WD Naseby Battlefield walk, I find myself thinking .. well, that changes everything.

Actually not – just the logical penny has dropped, and, as a consequence, I will need to change a little corner of the Naseby terrain model.   Essentially, it is a given that Streeter has foreshortened the perspective in his depiction, and – just as he has squeezed down the gap between Naseby and the battlefield – he has squeezed down the gap between the armies.

Streeter's Naseby unamended

(Streeter’s view: very clear but highly foreshortened, with the armies barely separated)

The armies should be further apart .. the King’s army should be smaller in both senses and further off into the background, on top of Dust Hill (not almost at the bottom of Broadmoor dip).    The only sense in which this ‘shrink back from the artist’s view’ causes a wrinkle is that behind Rupert’s flank there are a pair of closes.  These are probably not imaginary landscaping, and are probably in the correct place on Dust Hill.    The ‘shrinking back’ needs to leave these where they are, with Rupert’s flank butting up alongside them.

stretching Streeter out over the landscape

(in compressing the view, Streeter placed Okey’s main force of dragoons in position 1;  retaining their position relative to Rupert’s flank moves them to position 3; reenactors have used position 2)

The rethink came about as a result of a quick recce of the battlefield at the weekend with Graham Evans, which included a visit to the newly opened Sulby viewpoint (and trying to figure out exactly where it is in relation to the rest of the battlefield … and why it is where it is …)..  One of those half understood/half skated-over inconsistencies that only falls into place when you try to relate the landscape to the maps (and to the pictures).

(the clip is taken from the position marked ‘Sulby Flag’ on the other pictures)

Putting the flank back alongside these closes is important because, identified by Glenn Foard as ‘Archwrong Closes’, they are where (virtually) all the shot finds on the western side of the battlefield are.  As far as archaeology is concerned, if there was a firefight on Rupert’s flank, this is where it was.  So this is almost certainly Okey’s most advanced (and most hotly contested) position.

The yellow ringed area is where the vast majority of shot on the western fringe of the battlefield has been found

Against this certainty, Foard is reluctant to say Streeter is wrong (Streeter is usually pretty reliable), and not only does Streeter show the dragoons further down the hill, he also captions the nearer run of hedges ‘Lantford hedges lined with dragoones’*.   In fact, I don’t see this as a problem.

Further up the hedge, the dragoons are quite explicitly shown firing straight into Rupert’s flank … so (a) to keep faith with Streeter, when you move Rupert’s flank back to alongside the closes you need to take the dragoons back as well (or they will be shooting at nothing) … and (b), it doesn’t mean the Lantford hedge wasn’t also lined with dragoons (Okey’s regiment at full strength was 1000 … even allowing a lower figure, and deducting horse holders, still plenty to occupy a small close and line the hedge as well) …

Streeter shows the dragoons shooting into Rupert's flank

More important …

(1.) it tallies correctly with Cromwell’s instruction to Okey to ‘occupy a small close on the left flank’ …

(2.) it tallies better with Okey’s description of his men’s position being ‘incompassed on the one side with the King’s Horse and on the other side with the Foot and Horse to get the Close’ – it is easy to see this island jutting into the Royalist deployment being encompassed (much easier than squaring Okey’s words with the conventional interpretation);

(3.) it marries the eye-witness account with the archaeology …

Implications:

I always start the battle with Okey shooting into Rupert’s flank (the first action of the first turn!) … this is how the battle starts.  I also slope the closes boundary in onto Rupert’s flank as it seems clear that the smaller Royalist army deployed on a narrower frontage.  I already dismount the regiment of dragoons as 2 units of LI as they should (and with their numbers could) occupy a fairly wide frontage.

The one inconsistency is that I’ve never been sure what Okey needs to do to remount (as he said he did) later in the battle (i.e. which bit is which and where does it remount?) .  Thinking about how all this works, it has become clear that I’m already suggesting (consistent with the rules for Regiments of Foot) when the dragoons dismount, they can deploy a forlorn hope as well as a main firing line (so the two bodies I already permit).  In this case, I would say the Archwrong close position is the main force, the Lantford hedge position the forlorn hope (probably placed there to guard the way back to Parliament’s lines).   Streeter shows the horse holders directly behind the force firing into Rupert’s flank (so this is where they will be in the game, and this is where the regiment remounts**.

On the battlefield model, where the hedge currently widens out on Rupert’s flank, it needs now to form a box, with a ‘dog-leg’ back into the hedge line that follows the edge of the table.

Let battle begin.

*positively identified as the hedge running along the Sulby/Sibbertoft boundary alongside Lankyford furlong (Lantford = Lankyford) …

** following Martin Marix Evans, the remounted dragoons will be allowed to follow the tracks back up to the Naseby position to re-enter the field (the Sibbertoft end of these closes is off table).

This interpretation follows Foard as far as I understand the analysis he provides (Naseby: the decisive campaign … p.245 to 248)

A Victory for the King

Now you might think the Gentlemen Pensioners last properly saw action at Edgehill, but the band of veteran wargamers borrowing that title meets every year over the Phalanx weekend – and this year I was asked to stage the Naseby reconstruction as an entertainment for early arrivals on the Friday afternoon.

Chaos on Closter: the King's commanders close in on Fairfax

It was a good opportunity to play the game with a well-informed cast, and also to go over the game, ‘live’, as it were, before COW in a couple of weeks.   This year’s Conference of Wargamers will feature a Battlefield visit to Naseby in the afternoon and this refight at Knuston Hall in the evening.  Last weekend’s outing therefore allowed me to draw up the important ‘to do’ list (all those things left undone over the duration of the project …)…

First off, the synopsis of the game scales and mechanisms:

… the game is played to Armati 2nd edition as adapted on the attached pages.   All units deploy wide except Dragoons (when mounted), and although the units are Optimal Scale width,  the measurement system is Armati Intro.  The table is 3′ x 4′, with a foot therefore being about 500 metres.

There is no strict troop scale (Armati is unit-to-unit, and the scale is really 1 unit of FT represents a regiment, 1 base of HC represents a body of Horse shown on Streeter’s plan), but working backwards from the (generally more reliable) Parliamentarian numbers*, a foot figure represents around 33 actual men, a mounted figure around 100, and a gun, probably 4.   The disproportion between Horse and Foot is largely because the wargame units represent cavalry in a single rank, infantry usually deeper (so visually, you need to imagine significantly more ranks in the cavalry depiction than the infantry).

All shooting and fighting is unit-to-unit (not section to section) and player consensus overrides rules (so if it is obvious to both parties who is shot at, the priority targets rule does not apply; if both players think units have lined-up, they have – only otherwise is it assumed that there is an offset etc. etc.) … this all makes the game easier to play.

Second, for the benefit of players, here is the arrangement of Regiments deployed on the battlefield …

(you can click on the picture for a bigger image)

Naseby: White/Red for Parliament - Yellow/Blue for the King

The Commanders are in brackets, underlined for seniority.  Otherwise, the underlining indicates that the formation is infantry (or Dragoon infantry, of course).

There is Association horse behind both Parliamentarian wings; Col. Pride’s regt. was dispersed as a flank and rear guard on Parliament’s left but is not represented (I have put the Firelocks guarding the Train as a full unit, and have placed Fleetwood’s cavalry as a flank guard – which is what I believe Ireton was trying to organise when the battle begins: I think that puts sufficient cover in the vulnerable ‘pocket’**).

Maurice’s Horse incorporates the Queen’s Regiment;  Astley’s Tertia comprises the Duke of York’s, Hopton’s and Page’s Regts.; Bard’s Tertia comprises Bard’s, Thomas’s, Owen’s and Gerrard’s Regts.; Lisle’s Tertia comprises Lisle’s, St. George’s and Gilby’s Regts. plus the ‘Shrewsbury Foot’ (amalgamated companies from Irish Regiments).

Just on the edge of the table, the King’s reserve is a hybrid division comprising the King’s Regiment of Foot, the Lifeguard of Horse, Prince Rupert’s Regiment of Foot and Col Howard’s Regiment of Horse (originally interspersed amongst the Foot in the deployment’s Second line).

King Charles and the Reserve at Naseby

The complete Orders of Battle:

ROYALIST

♦ The King (I:4,  Bold but may not leave the reserve division.  The Umpire will dice against the players’ die roll to move the King’s division: if the Umpire wins the Kings aides will have dissuaded him from moving.  If Rupert joins the division the King will take his advice and the movement is not diced for) …

1 mixed unit of Horse and Foot – 5(2)0 but ignores enemy horse for movement and impetus, 1 4(1)0 HC (controlled division) … The Life guard, the King’s and Rupert’s Foot, Howard’s Horse.

♦ Rupert (I:6, Rash) – commands the army on behalf of the King.

The Right Wing: ♦ Prince Maurice (I:5, Rash)

2 units of veteran 5(1)0 HC (controlled division);  2 units of 4(1)0 HC (controlled division), 2 units SI attached musketeers (controlled division – may detach);

The Centre: ♦ Lord Jacob Astley (I:5, Bold)

3 Tertiae of reinforced veteran 6(2)0 FT (pikes/muskets) … Astley’s, Bard’s and Lisle’s.

2 medium guns; 2 independent  SI muskets

The Left Wing: ♦ Sir Marmaduke Langdale (I:5, cautious)

2 4(1)0 HC – Northern Horse – (controlled division), 1 SI muskets (may be attached to HC); 1 4(1)0 HC – Cary’s Horse – (out of command)

(9 standard units, 3 enlarged units, 4 active commanders … CR: H7 + 5 detachments and 2 guns.  BP: 7 including lost commanders BUT the BP is reduced by 2 if the King’s division withdraws from the field)

PARLIAMENT

♦ Sir Thomas Fairfax (I:5, Rash) – commands the army: starts stationed with the reserve but may join any unit in the army

The Reserve: 2 5(2)0 FT (single unit divisions) – Rainsborough’s and Hammond’s

The right Wing: ♦ Oliver Cromwell (I:6, bold)

2 units of veteran 5(1)0 HC (controlled division); 2 units of 4(1)0 HC (controlled division); 1 unit of 4(1)0 HC (uncontrolled division – Association Horse)

The Centre: ♦ Philip Skippon (I:5, Bold)

5 units of 5(2)0 FT Pike/Musket – Fairfax’s, Montague’s, Pickering’s, Hardress Waller’s and Skippon’s Regiments – (controlled division); 3 medium guns; 2 SI musketeer detachments (controlled divisions)

the Left Wing: ♦ Henry Ireton (I:5, cautious)

2 units of 4(1)0 HC (controlled division); 1 unit of 4(1)0 HC in the second line (controlled division); 1 unit of 4(1)0 HC (uncontrolled division) – Fleetwood’s cavalry already withdrawn as a flank guard.

In addition, Parliament deploys

A Firelock unit 4(1)0 +1 on firing, with the Train (uncontrolled division defending RG); 1 unit of Dragoons deployed as 2 LI Muskets in Sulby Hedges (controlled  division) – Col. Okey’s Regt. … it may remount as a single unit of Dr. at the Parliamentarian end of the hedges; a forlorn hope of SI Muskets (uncontrolled division) in the Broadmoor valley bottom.

(20 units, 4 commanders … CR: H7, L1 + 3 detachments and 3 guns.  BP:9 including lost commanders)

Endgame:

When an army has reached its breakpoint (BP), it must withdraw, conceding victory. This ‘dead stop’ is randomised thus: at the end of any turn in which an army has reached or exceeded its BP, roll a die: for the army to continue, a die roll of 2 or higher must be achieved +1 for each additional unit lost above the BP, and for each additional turn played since the BP was reached … but a 6 is always a ‘pass’.  It may well be that this will result in both sides dicing to continue the fight, and the random finish deciding victory.

Victory for the King … How did it go?

The game starts according to the script … Okey’s Dragoons opened fire on Maurice’s cavalry, causing disorder.   In the movement phase, chivvied on by Rupert, the cavalry pressed on (hoping to dice off the disorder rather than opting for the guaranteed removal of a halt).

The infantry Tertiae advanced as did Langdale’s wing.  The New Model foot held the ridge, and Cromwell decided to hug their flank rather than venture down through the rabbit warren.

Ireton opted to charge Rupert’s line, losing and being swept away by the regiment that had impetus from their higher FV.    Rupert’s other regiment had lost impetus due to the unrecovered disorder (from the Dragoon musketry to flank), and was held.   This pattern of success and loss, some pursuing, some not,  meant that although Ireton was beaten (and indeed killed in the fight), it took several turns.  A fortuitous initiative win also meant Fleetwood’s (out of command) Cavalry were able to charge in and defend the infantry’s progressively uncovered flank.

Meanwhile the Royalist infantry crashed home, and, realising that the clock was running down, Cromwell finally charged down into Langdale’s counter-charging Northern Horse.

The balance of the infantry battle on Closter Hill went to the King … although outnumbered in units, the three ‘reinforced’ Tertiae count as veteran, and have a 2 FV advantage over the New Model foot (who have a mitigating plus for the hill, but only in the first round of combat – Skippon committed himself to combat to bolster his men further, but went down in the fighting): Parliament lost 3 regiments (Skippon’s, Hardress Waller’s and Pickering’s: the entire left of the line), the King, 1 (Lisle’s).   Fairfax, too, joined the fray.

The attack on the ridge: the approximate position of the Monument is superimposed for reference

(note that, following Streeter, this projection omits about half a mile or so of open country between Closter Hill and Naseby village: this is where Pride’s rearguard mentioned above was probably positioned)

With just one unit remaining unbroken from Langdale’s wing, the King’s army was 5 down; Parliament had, by now, lost all of Ireton’s Horse, plus the Commissary General himself, and the left flank infantry (7 units plus 2 commanders in total) triggering the endgame mechanism.  Cromwell threw less than 2, and the army’s morale collapsed.

It might have been a near run thing: Langdale’s last unit was bound to break, and as the header photo shows, Astley’s Tertia was ‘one off’ at the end of the final turn (a good shot in the next phase would have tipped it over, and the ‘push of pike’ that would inevitably follow would see it rout on contact – thus making the King 7 down): both sides would then have been dicing to stay on the field, and fortune might have won the day for Parliament.

I really enjoyed this running of the game – and thank the players.  As we regularly say (even with reconstructions that are relatively constrained, as I have made this one) … I haven’t seen it swing that way before.    Players bring their own flavour to the game, and, as timing proved decisive in the victory, I think it will be important to ensure players understand how the endgame works.  That said, otherwise the mechanics of the game ran very smoothly (and get another tick).  I have been placing some of the King’s baggage on the table edge behind the army, following Streeter, which got the odd knock.  It was suggested maybe I should put a pictorial edge there – indeed, perhaps a printed string of Streeter waggons – instead, and in imitation of the engraving …

Tempting …

___________________________________________________________________________________________

* The size of Parliament’s force is better documented.  The King’s army’s numbers have (from the very beginning) been much disputed, often according to an agenda (some liked to ‘talk it up’, feeling it demeaned the King to suggest he could not command equal numbers; other Royalists characterise the army as a small band of loyal heroes) … it has always been important to Royalists to emphasise that the King lost because he was outnumbered and because Rupert – a rash foreigner – let him down.

**mental note … possibly the unit of firelocks should be shown as a mix of Train guards and Pride’s rear guard? … For completeness, as it were …

Update to the ECW adaptations page.

Prompted by a very interesting thread on the Warfloot Armati forum (Flanks – harder or less effective?) I put up a link to the flanks definition I use, and also (as a courtesy, I guess), read over what I had said.  The definition started …

Units have 4 sides and 2 corners: a front, a rear, and 2 side edges, and 2 front and 2 rear corners.

ECW Armati (Adaptations)

Now I’m sure I had a reason for saying 2 corners (I probably meant 2 types of corner – 2 front and 2 rear) and it is important that corners exist as they have a key function in defining how flank attacks work.

However, I have to own up that a definition that says units have 2 corners is the type of rules gibberish that I hate (as they clearly have 4!).  So I have corrected that line and it now properly states that units have 4 corners!

I don’t think the explanation of how you define flank attacks is any less clear for the change.  So apologies, all, for having fed you wargame rules speak unnecessarily.  I’ve set up a photo so it’s clear what the words actually mean …

(you might want to click on the picture to see it full size)

The arrows show the direction of facing, of course.  Note in the bottom line, the ‘classic’ rear corner clip: this is not a flank/rear attack because in this case the contact is only (and is only ever) with the attacker’s corner not his front edge.   It should be obvious from the definition that in order to meet the ‘front edge on rear corner’ requirement, the attacker needs to get to (or beyond) 90 degrees, and get something up to or beyond the target’s rear corner.

Note also that the adaptations allow for this ‘wing attack’ (a +1 modifier to the frontal FV) … so there is something in it for the attacker (just for the full Armati impact you need to get a lot further round the enemy)…

The formula is simple and the implications are shown in the picture.

That is how I do flank/rear attacks.

Dispatches from the front

Many thanks to Neil and friends from Nantwich for talking me through their Battle of Worcester display at Partizan 2011.

Well, it looked good enough to share with you on ecwbattles … but more … the game was geared to Piquet (much praised by Neil, but not a system I have tried outside the ancients period: so worthy of inclusion for that reason).  Further, I like sieges and combined operations (all of which was probably more a feature of the Civil War than the open field battles we generally focus on) …

I’ve captioned the picture ‘a’ rather than ‘the’ battle of Worcester, as the display was presented very much as a ‘what if’.

Leslie's men holding the walls

The King's finest

Nonetheless, there is a lot here to admire – and it almost makes you want to do the period in 28mm.

(click on the pictures to see a bigger image)

I had pretty much decided that my next battle should be Newbury (as suits Colours as a potential exhibition outing), but I rather liked the look of all this (maybe it should be a pukka siege, next up …).

I hope you like the pictures