"Question on Bloody Barons Battle Formations" Topic

From what I have read on different battles over the medieval period (HYW and WOTR) formation wise was that armies often drew up in three divisions with sometimes a small reserve.

The army would march to the battlefield with a Vanguard, Mainguard and Rearguard which would then form line with the three divisions all in line.

I enjoy reading the Bloody Barons AAR with the pictures and have notice that often the divisions are have sub units such as Household, levy, etc. Is this historically correct? I would of thought that Household troops would be spread amoung the retinue and levy troops for morale, effectiness and leadership.

cheers
Edward

Oops ref this being posted on the Modern Discussion Message Board. I clicked Modern instead of Medieval the first time when trying to cross post.

"often the divisions have sub units such as Household, levy, etc. Is this historically correct? I would of thought that Household troops would be spread amoung the retinue and levy troops for morale, effectiness and leadership."

A battle (the correct term for what yo have called a division) could consist of a variety of troop types (e.g. retinue, feed men etc.). Whether they fought as recognisable sub-units is debatable. It is known that WOTR armies were organised into companies of ~100 men under the command of a centenar and possibly even smaller units of ~20 men under the command of a vintenar. However, all the primary accounts describe battles apparently fighting as one unit rather than a collection of sub-units.

The people who write the rules think fighting in three "battles" is too restrictive for the players.

The rule writers also want to have a multitude of troop types. When formed into "battles" the troop types disappear into pretty much just melee foot and archers.

"The people who write the rules think fighting in three "battles" is too restrictive for the players."

How so? If that is how battles of the period were fought, then surely that is how we should game it? In my rules for the WOTR fighting in three or four battles is the best way to manage the game. The rules don't enforce it, it's just easier to do the historical thing than not.

"The rule writers also want to have a multitude of troop types. When formed into "battles" the troop types disappear into pretty much just melee foot and archers."

Again, in my rules for the WOTR, I have heavy foot; medium foot; missile armed (bows or handguns); good, average or poor quality. The troops in a battle can be any mix of all these types. This, IMHO nicely represents the polyglot nature of a battle in a WOTR army consisting of retinue troops, feed men etc.

Bloody Barons does enforce the "three battles" division of the army..but in a subtle manner. There are three deployment zones where the troops are deployed and the army is comanded by three generals who (provided the player thinks about it…) are usually placed well apart with a section of the army to command- ergo three battles in effect. You can deploy how you like and try to have units all over the place marching to the telepathic commands of their commanders if you like- but it won't work. Deploying your units closed up and close to a general is the only sure way your plan doesn't fall apart. This is how it should be of course.

Individual troop units fight as part of these larger groupings. Yes it has been argued that household troops in particular might well have been spread amonst the mass of troops and there should be an "avarageing out" of the troops grading and you can do this if you wish. BB allows each costituant unit to have its own traing/morale and weaponry factors to increase interest. Lets be honest, this is also how it is done in most other sets that cover the period WAB,DBA/M/MM or FOG even.

Are BB the best WOR rule set ever? the most accurate? playable? Dunno really, they match my imagining of what battle was like at the time, they allow enough decision making by the player to make it interesting and like most Peter Pig rules they are very good fun to play.

On the downside…the melee results for cavalry versus cavalry are still not "officially" published, treatment of the hairy fringe troops is still problamatical (Irish, Borders etc..).

I have some extras on the cards for these, plus use of mounted archers and using the rules for other wars (Barons Wars, Peasants revolt, Flodden , Shrewsbury etc..)

Graham

Which rules do you use Mike ?

"Which rules do you use Mike ?"

My own, home grown, I guess you could say. I have given them the title "The Sunne in Splendour". Hopefully they will be published in due course in The Nugget.

Mike I'm not agreeing with the rule writers. I use the three battle formation and treat each battle as a unit.