"ECW Regiments - combat units or only administrative?" Topic

I was reading some of the Forlorn Hope / Caliver Books scenarios, and they indicate that the regiment was more of an administrative organization rather than a combat one. Certainly at Edgehill, the regiments were organized into brigades of 3-5 regiments on both sides, albeit in different styles (one swedish, one dutch I believe).

First question: do most of us agree that the regiment is more administrative than combat in function?

Second question: If so, how would we represent this on the table? Allow players to organize their infantry regiments into brigade formations as they please and fight in them? It would make the combat unit considerably larger. And cav troops seem to have been swapped around freely. Perhaps we should just let players organize them as they wish, also?

Thanks for your thoughts!

"English foot regiments of the Civil War period were organized with six to twelve companies, … Unit establishments were in no way standardized, since at the outbreak of war in 1642 England did not possess a standing army. Companies were supposed to have about 100 men, and a foot regiment at full strength might contain 800-1,000 men, but actual troop strengths were usually much lower and it was frequently necessary to brigade two or three weak regiments together."
tmg110.tripod.com/british6.htm

I think a major beef here is that the ECW regiments could vary quite a lot in how badly they were understrenght.

As for the issue of brigading, I would perhaps recommend leaving that up the player to decide – though brigading up the units should perhaps bring some command advantages.

well, it also raises the question of how the "brigade" of brigaded regiments fought. Did they fight as units or did they fight as a Brigade formation?

Cavalry regiments of varying troops were more flexible, but I still see problems with throwing together a bunch of regiments and asking them to fight coherently.

Oddly, the English brigade looks a lot like the tercios of the previous era. Osprey's "Edgehill" campaign book talks a lot about this, that the Parls used the Dutch method and the Royals the Swedish method etc.

My question ultimately asks if I should play the regiments as seperate units "near each other" or as one large Brigade formation. I don't know the answer.

As far as I can see, generally infantry were combined into 400-600 man battalions for field battles.

After 1642 this is the size of a pretty decent foot regiment, so potentially a regiment could be a combat unit.

However many regiments on both sides were shockingly understrength, certainly regiments of 200-300, or even less than 100 are common enough. As far as can be determined from the contemporary 'headquarters maps', Marston Moor, Naseby, Third Newbury ;-), the small units were brigaded together into the 500-or-so man battalions.

Conversely, big regiments could be split down into two 500-ish man battalions, as seems plausible for some of the Roundhead foot at Edgehill and the odd large Royalist unit at Marston Moor.

With the advent of the New Model, foot regiments seem to hover around the 500-600 mark again, so a regiment should be a combat unit in the NMA.

Other things to consider are the detachment of musketeers away to make Forlorns, which could be 1000 or so strong eg Cheriton, or the wholesale splitting of pike from musket at Lansdown and Adwalton (was this more common? I don't think we know! – possibly a 'close country' tactic?). Also sometimes there were 'mix-and-match' units eg foot beefed up with dragoon musketeers at Cirencester. I get the impression that organisation was a bit off-the-cuff much of the time!

So in, say 1644, were regiments of any significance, when eg Oxford foot were brigaded together for the summer campaign? I think they were, as each had its own history and experience, and maybe a core from recruiting in the same district. Certainly Symonds was very careful to describe the individual regiments and their colours, rather than just 'the second battalion of Sir Bernard Astley's brigade' or whatever.

So for wargaming I think a battalion-sized foot unit (whether all one regiment, or a mix of odds & sods) is the way to go, after all a 5-figure regiment of foot just looks silly! At least it gives you the excuse to add lots of extra flags.

"Oddly, the English brigade looks a lot like the tercios of the previous era."

The Dutch Method:
"The way the Dutch Army fought before being reformed was the same as the Swiss,Spanish and French Armies of the period. Large squares of upto 3,000 men, later reduced to roughly 1,500 called "Tercios" were formed with pikemen in the middle and fringed all the way round by Arquebusiers. These formations were totally inefficient …
Prince Maurice split these tercios into five-company battalions each of 675 men, 10 ranks deep with pikemen in the center flanked either side by [shot] … This type of formation … made the full use of men and firepower"
link

"Each [Royalist] brigade was drawn up on the Swedish pattern with musketeers on the flanks and the majority of the pikemen deployed in the centre. The adoption of the Swedish method and the rejection of the Dutch, against the advice of the King's Lord General, Robert Lindsay, led to the first Royalist command clash of the day."
link

"With the Parliamentarian regiments deployed in eight ranks, according to the Dutch method, a regimental frontage would occupy approximately 150 yards, and a brigade front over 600 yards."
link

The Dutch Method:
"Regiments would now form, usually two or more battalions on the field, each with pikes in the centre, musketeers on each side of them."

The Swedish Method
"The tactics of the Swedes were a further development of the Dutch model. The musketeers, drawn up only 6 ranks deep, were trained both to fire by counter march two ranks at a time, and to 'double the files', extending into 3-deep formation to deliver concerted volleys, every man firing at once"
Renaissance Armies, George Gush, PSL, 1975

Mike and others have given you some very good ideas on ECW foot. I think maybe you are confusing "brigades"; the organizational entity made up of several regiments, with "brigaded", the act of taking two or more small regiments of foot and combining them into one unit for battle. Or maybe not … :)

Mike B

The posts above are pretty much on the money. Tactical doctrine in the ECW was derived from the experiences of the TYW. In formal field actions the received wisdom was that tactical formations of foot should be of about 600 – 800. Horse should be of around 300. The way in which units were recruited was pretty ad hoc (with the exception of London trained bands units and possibly Cornish TBs. In these cases the entire unit was raised for service. In other cases local supporters would be authorised to recruit troops. This of course meant that there would be huge differences in the numbers raised. A well respected officer would have more recruits than he might expect and a less respected one less.

The main administrative unit was probably the Company and Troop. Regiments as we know them were also an administrative unit for foot, I'm not sure about the position for Horse. As Timbo and others have already said these recruited units were merged or split to create the tactical battlefield units. These were battalions for Foot (or squadrons in Swedish service) ans squadrons for Horse. These were ad hoc bodies for a single campaign (possibly rearranged after a battle to take account of losses).

Pay returns are by company and regiment so these were clearly admin units.

As for battlefield organisation. Two to four foot battalions to the "Brigade". Actual numbers depend on tactical doctrine usually 4 in dutch as they deployed foot in three lines (front line, support line & reserve) a brigade would be "stacked up" in depth across all three lines to allow the Brigade commander to have control of the front line support and reserve in his "sector". Swedish brigades became smaller towards the end of the TYW (I think normally 3 battalions) these were all in a single line not stacked up in depth. The Swedes appear to have deployed in two lines (lets call it front and support)which seems to have allowed a more aggressive mode of fighting as the brigade commander could more easily co ordinate an attack as he controlled all the front line.

Horse formations seem to have followed the same logic. Except where the terrain didn't allow for this. This happened to Cromwell's wing of Horse at Naseby where they were forced to deploy in three lines.

Finally from what i know of Naseby by 1645 both sides were using a hybrid tactical style (Keith Roberts terms it German). Formation depths in the individual units were "swedish". Army formation was "dutch" for the Royalist (three lines of infantry with horse support mixed in) probably reflecting the fact that they were out numbered but had veteran foot units and "swedish" for the New model (two lines) apart from the cavalry.

In other words the generals on both sides understood the pros and cons of both doctrines and cherry picked the elements of the style as they felt best given the situation they faced.

Not much to add here.

Many ECW gamers seem to play as if the army was a British Napoleonic one and deploy by the regiment. I've always played units of foot as 500 – 600 men – my Royalist table top units are made from figures from 2, 3 or even 4 regiments. I don't subscribe to the notion of 1,000 men in combat units except perhaps at Edgehill.

So yes regiment admin only. I have been told that men considered themselves of X company first then of Y regiment secondly.

Royalist cavalry troops and regiments were in semi permanent brigades certainly by 1644.

So would the formation by which the men moved and fought, got orders, etc, be the (ad hoc) Battalion? That seems to be what people are saying. The diagrams of the formations at Edgehill look like the battalions are very interdependant.

Or would the fighting unit be the brigade of 3-4 battalions?

Who is the real commander on the spot – Battalion or Brigade commanders?

Not certain of the truth here but common sense suggests that the battalion commander would control things like unit formation and firings. Brigade commanders would control the use of support and reserve units and overall tactical useage of the brigade (subject to instructions from Army command).

Most sets of rules let you effectively control at all levels. Personally I think that rules should allow battalions to be the effective tactical unit so that command and control rests at that level and no lower. This should be subject to "standing orders" or similar, enforcing proper tactical useages. Movement of the battalions and the combat mode they are in (offensive or defensive etc) should be decided at brigade (as noted above subject to Army orders). So in game terms Grand tactical control should be at Brigade, tactical at battalion.

I'm currently doing researching for a set of rules for 2mm ECW on a 1:1 figure scale using 1mm to the yard/meter so that formation sizes and ground scales and figure scales all match up. It's already causing me to rethink much of what I thought I knew about formation sizes. I'm going to try for tactical control at Brigade level with Battalions operating on "auto pilot" as it were. Wish me luck!

Sounds interesting Elenderil.
How big is a battalion in this period and how are they deployed on the field? What I am asking is what dod a brigade loo like, any good visuals to link to?

Battalion size depends on the tactical doctrine being followed as is the look of a brigade deployed for combat.

The first thing to realise is that individual battalions would have a lot of space around them. Ideally the interval between two battalions would be enough to allow a support battalion to move into line between them (or a retiring battalion to retreat between them. Formations were intended to be chequer board with a support battalion sitting in line with the interval in the first line.

If your infantry is deployed in Dutch style (three lines of battalions) then a brigade of 4 battalions could be ( in football terms) deployed in a number of combinations. eg 1 – 2- 1 (front – support – reserve).

Keith Roberts Book "Cromwells War machine has some good material and is worth a look. I can't think of any good visuals on line right of the top of my head.

Elenderil, your ideas seem to be very close to my own re what would make a good set of wargames rules. I would be happy to assist or playtest.

One question: The books on Edgehill that I have read seem to assume that the Royalists used the "classic" – i.e Gustavian – Swedish brigade formation (with 1 squadron held back as a reserve in the third line, 1 advanced and 2 in the second line) as the basic fighting unit. This has always struck me as an odd formation for Rupert to advocate. The "classic" Gustavan brigade was phased out after Nordlingen (1634) and no one used it in the late 1630's or 1640's.

Is it your opinion that what Rupert was advocating was nothing more complex than an army formation consisting of 2 lines of battalia with brigade commands extended along 1 single line only, as oppposed to being in depth?

The osprey edgehill campaign book has several brigade deployment diagrams. It's what got me starting this thread in the first place.

"The first thing to realise is that individual battalions would have a lot of space around them. Ideally the interval between two battalions would be enough to allow a support battalion to move into line between them (or a retiring battalion to retreat between them. Formations were intended to be chequer board with a support battalion sitting in line with the interval in the first line."

I'm not convinced about this chequerboard idea, either for the ECW or the Republican Roman legion. Take a look at this well known print of Naseby:

picture

No chequerboard there, in fact the gaps appear to be only big enough for a couple of guns. If the chequerboard was so great how come it was not perpetuated?

remember, it's an engraving, not a live video shoot.

The idea behind the checkerboard is that it is more flexible and less prone to the disaster of outflanking. When you look at a three-line army, or even a two-line army, it has a lot more options should it be outflanked. And yet, with the checkerboard, should the front line meet heavy resistance, it's easy to move up and double the regiments in the front line.

"fear of flanking" dominated a lot of thinking in many military eras.

Also, when you looke at the brigade formations, they are not linear, but more of a "+" shape, with four regiments each making one arm of the "+". The beauty of this formation is should it be attacked from the flank, one facing maneuver and it has the same frontage of musketeers in any of the four directions. It can fire three regiments worth in all four directions, basically.

Interesting that they thought this way, how should it translate to the tabletop is my direction of query here.

"remember, it's an engraving, not a live video shoot."

Of course not. But can you show me a contemporary (or near contemporary) picture showing your chequerboard formation?

"The idea behind the checkerboard is that it is more flexible and less prone to the disaster of outflanking."

Umm … no, I don't think do. It is no less prone to outflanking than an army arrayed in two or three lines with no gaps. Indeed, the very gaps you propose are an invitation to an enemy to enter those gaps and outflank each unit.

"When you look at a three-line army, or even a two-line army, it has a lot more options should it be outflanked."

Yes, but that is function of multiple lines, not any chequerboard array.

"And yet, with the checkerboard, should the front line meet heavy resistance, it's easy to move up and double the regiments in the front line."

So why not assume the worst and double up anyway? The armies at Naseby and Marston Moor had plenty enough troops to do so and still form up in two or three lines of troops. Indeed, you would be hard pushed to fit all the troops at Marston Moor into the space available if you tried to enforce such a chequerboard formation.

"Also, when you look at the brigade formations, they are not linear, but more of a "+" shape, with four regiments each making one arm of the "+"."

I have absolutely no idea where you get that one from. Please cite some sources.

If I recall correctly Streeter's woodcut illustration of Naseby is a depiction in the style of the illustrations in the "Swedish Intelligencer". I'm sure I have read (and fairly recently at that) something that states that in one edition of that news phamphlet the author stated that the battle illustrations reduced the gaps between the battalions to make it look better. I don't have access to my books at the mement so I can't quote sources but I'm sure that swedish and dutch formations (at least in theory) requited foot to be in chequer board.

I don't place full reliance on Streeter as all the units on the royalist side are depicted with pike elements. There is evidence of some musket only formations (The Shrewsbury Foot for one)on the Kings side so it appears that the woodcut was representative rather that fully accurate. What does the De Gomme copy of Rupert's proposed deployment for Naseby show?

De Gomme's plan shows chequerboard for the infantry. 4 Bn in 1st line, 3 in second, 2 in reserve.

The gaps between the frontline units appear almost, but not quite, big enough to fit the second line, though no idea if the scale was supposed to be that accurate.

Interestingly there are 2 horse units directly behind 2 centre unts of the front infantry line too.

I've heard that reasonable gaps are necessary between foot units to avoid them merging into one-another while marching and maneuvering, causing a right old mixup.

"De Gomme's plan shows chequerboard for the infantry. 4 Bn in 1st line, 3 in second, 2 in reserve."

De Gomme's plan does not in fact show a chequerboard. It is true that the regiments in the second line are covering gaps in the first line, but the two regiments in the third line are directly behind regiments in the second line and there are also horse interspersed between and among the infantry:

link

Just as the Streeter plan may not be an accurate representation of the battlefield, the De Gomme plan is only a theoretical plan for the deployment, so equally cannot be relied on as hard evidence.

I posted something on this in the pike ratio thread.

Mike I agree that nothing is "hard evidence" but we have to use what evidence there is available. De Gomme was copying a document produced by Rupert as a guide for deployment. Deploying horse amongst the infantry might be exactly what was intended. My understanding (and please don't ask for the source of this as I don't remember where I read it)is that it was intended as a support to the Infantry.

On the other hand I know that Peter Newman has pointed out that De Gomme's deployment map for Marston Moor is wrong as it shows Newcastle's Infantry in the deployment but in reality they arrived late on the field and almost certainly didn't deploy as shown. (Source Peter Newman The Battle of Marston Moor 1981)

We will never know for certain so we have to make the best assumptions we can based on the evidence of intentions, tactical doctrine, and primary source battlefield accounts. The assumption that suits my view of how a field army was drawn up in open ground is chequer board but that in the final analysis is all it is a best guess based on the evidence in front of me.

As for Edgehill I'm not sure as I haven't looked at it in the same detail as Naseby and Marston Moor. If I get chance I'll do a bit of digging and get back to you. Playtesting is some way off yet as I'm still working on concepts and assumptions and testing the same.

Interestingly SteelonSand is doing something similar also in 2mm and concentrating on Naseby as I came across his blog site yesterday steelonsand.blogspot.com . He has also been looking at similar concepts and has some nice shots of 2mm blocks.

"We will never know for certain so we have to make the best assumptions we can based on the evidence of intentions, tactical doctrine, and primary source battlefield accounts. The assumption that suits my view of how a field army was drawn up in open ground is chequer board but that in the final analysis is all it is a best guess based on the evidence"

Yes, I agree it is a best guess. However, I find the chequer board deployment idea somewhat lacking in the following respects:

1. The battle plans showing it are just that, battle plans. I am not aware of any evidence from contemporary writing that supports the actual use of such deployments.

2. The chequer board idea seems to have been acquired from the Dutch (presumably as a natural development of the tercio). Such formations are fine when there is plenty of room (e.g. on the Continent) but in England in the 17th century there was often just not enough space to deploy in the planned manner. As I have already indicated, it is hard to cram all the troops into the available space at Marston Moor, let alone leave any room for such a chequer board.

3. The chequer board idea is commonly believed to have originated with the Republican Roman legion. However, there is little, if any, evidence to support the use of such a formation by the Romans.

Hi all,

Ok De Gomme's map of Naseby shows the first two lines in 'chequerboard' or something close to it, the third line was not 'chequering' the second but was the reserve and deployed quite far back if I recall.

While the ECW deployment diagrams aren't perfect evidence, they at least show that this is how the staff thought that infantry should form up, and I haven't seen one that doesn't use this sort of arrangement. Are there any writings that support one big continual line? I'm sure the 17th century theorists didn't check their sources too closely when they tried to adopt classical formations either. ;-)

I guess there may be a grey area between 'chequers', where a gap is left between each first row unit such that a second row unit can fit into it, and just leaving a suitable gap to avoid neighbouring units merging into one-another (then having the second row unit covering this gap).

Presumably one reason was to avoid the second row units being carried away should a front row unit rout?

"Ok De Gomme's map of Naseby shows the first two lines in 'chequerboard' or something close to it,"

Just to be clear here, De Gomme's plan is NOT a map of Naseby. It "was probably drawn up in Oxford prior to the Naseby campaign. The plan shows the regimental deployments to be adopted in the event of battle."

Although the Streeter drawing is known to have inaccuracies, I think it unlikely that it would be so inaccurate as to not show this chequerboard arrangement if
it had in fact been used.

Note also that De Gomme only shows the plan for the Roaylist forces. As far as I am aware, there is no similar plan for the New Model Army, nor is there any contemporary documentary evidence supporting the actual use of the Royalist plan.

The balance of evidence IMHO is in favour of smaller gaps between the units than De Gomme's plan suggests (see my points above).

I know that for set piece engagements where the ground didn't permit it these types of formal deployments went out of the window (at first Newbury for example). I also suspect that in the smaller regional engagements they probably were not used (eg Whalley in 1643). I even accept that where space was tight the intervals between battalions were shortened and or additional lines added. This has been a major debate regarding the Naseby battlefield's width.

The interesting point though is this: If ECW commanders didn't use a chequer board layout for the foot in situations where they could, why did the contemporary draft deployment plans show the foot laid out like that? It took a conscious decision to draw the plan in that way I can't believe that the draftsman asccidentally placing the units that way. To my mind that suggests that was some reason for showing the foot deployed in such a formation. This now leads us to have to ask what were these plans used for.

If as I think Timbo and I are suggesting they were a kind of contingency deployment plan then it appears to indicate that the general idea was to deploy the foot in chequer board. Mike, you seem to be sceptical about the validity of these plans compared to the actual deployments that was used on the field and to some extent I do agree that they probably do not represent the exact deployment.

According to Keith Roberts (I know I keep banging on about his book but it is pretty much the only one I know that discusses this stuff in detail)the Dutch three line deployment was intended to have a gap between the first two lines roughly equivalent to the width of a battalion. I assume this was to allow a unit to wheel in this gap to manouver into position in the front line if required. The gap between the second and third line is double that. The idea being that the first line could reform inside that gap if they were driven in. If this was the concept then it suggests that there must have been an escape route allowing a unit to retire in reasonably good order.

I also accept that this is derived from what Prince Maurice (the dutch one not Rupert's brother) believed the Romans did rather than what they actually may have done. But the point is that is his belief and also his adoption of what he believed they did to suit the early 17th C Dutch army. We need to go back to original sources of what the manuals suggested be done and then to battlefield accounts of what was actually done. We also need to consider how do broken troops behave are they really driven straight backwards away from the engaging enemy in panic and through any supporting units deployed directly behind them. Or do they have head for the nearest gap in the support line? To be honest I don't know the answer to that.

BTW I don't suppose any of you guys are SK members going to York for the August Bank Holiday event. If so we could continue this debate over a beer across the weekend. If so let me know and I'll PM where to find me.

Aha, I think I've got it,

De Gomme's plan of the Parliamentarians at Marston Moor!

Surely this can only be drawn at the time, or subsequently.

Looks pretty chequery to me ;-)

"De Gomme's plan of the Parliamentarians at Marston Moor! Surely this can only be drawn at the time, or subsequently.
Looks pretty chequery to me ;-)"

Except that there just isn't enough room to fit the Parliamentarian army into the space available in such a chequerboard formation.

There are lots of obvious reasons to use a multiple-line deployment, and "checkerboarding" the units leaves you with flexibility to redeploy units against flank attacks (The great fear in every commander's mind).

Imagine that you are deploying armies at 0430, it is dark, and there are no radios, bad/unreliable scouting, and only a vague idea where the enemy is, and NO idea what he's up to. So you have to deploy on a front facing the enemy (you think), and yet you can't totally commit to the front because it'd be just damnably awkward if they turned up in a different direction.

Take a set of any decenly realistic set of rules, deploy your army in a continuous line with a second line that has a few reserve units. This might be facing the 6-foot side of the board in a Warhammer-esque game. Now, instead of deploying the enemy facing them, deploy them on the flank, the 4-foot side of the board. Well, your army is done, b/c there's only one line and its facing the wrong way. The reserve units, which are probably towards the center, are too far from the final units of your long line.

Now deploy it in a checkerboard of units. If the enemy is towards the front, in one move you can close up the gaps against the enemy that has kindly deployed facing you. If the enemy is on your flank, you already have two, probaly three units that can face the enemy with one formation change.

Sooo, I think even in 'gameland' when you consider a realistic game beginning, instead of the 200-foot tall general's-eye-view of a game, the deployment in checkerboard becomes more desirable.

But if this isn't enough for you, drop by next time you're in the area, and I'll be happy to roll your army up from a flank!

Frankly I can't be arsed to work out the frontages and if you're 100% certain you know how many troops were at Martson Moor, well……

OK all infantry in the ECW always formed up in one big massive line, suit yourself.

"Except that there just isn't enough room to fit the Parliamentarian army into the space available in such a chequerboard formation."

Not that we know exactly what the ground looked like back then…

Basically, we should all have reservations about any piece of historical information, and it won't change in the video age, b/c you can tamper with video (especially digital which is inadmissible in court for that very reason). However, we can deduce "likelihoods" from the writings of generals, the books that they read, and any other historical artifacts that are extant.

While you're right that it isn't 100% certain, you're not applying the same standard of doubt to both deployments.

Also, there's always the fact that if armies quickly deploy into two lines, b/c they are facing each other, the checkerboard won't last long. Note also, that it is easier to maneuver forlorn hopes, artillery and cavalry thru infantry checkerboarded than in a solid line or two.

So there are reasons to do it, the question is "did they do it" and "if so, where/when".

In any event, there are pictures of both the "Swedish" and "Dutch" deployments in Osprey's Edgehill boook, and they are nicely explained. I just got the Marston moore book and there is more on deployment in there.

"Not that we know exactly what the ground looked like back then…"

Well we DO know the distance between Long Marston and Tockwith – neither village has moved! Looking at a map, the distance between them is more or less 2200 yards.

So let's see, the Parliamentarian army had 14,500 foot (minimum, some writers give a figure as high as 20,000) and 7,000 horse.

Both horse and foot were arrayed in three lines of units.

Taking the foot, each line of foot would have ~4833 men, deployed in 6 ranks. That gives ~805 files. In order, each man occupies 3ft, so the total frontage required for each line of foot is 805yds. HOWEVER, in order to array the first two lines in chequerboard formation this doubles to 1610 yds, leaving 590 yds for the horse.

7,000 horse in 3 lines gives ~ 2,333 in each line, deployed in 3 ranks, giving us 777 files. Allowing 4.5ft per horse, we need a minimum frontage of 1166yds. If we arrange the horse in chequerboard as well we need 2,333yds.

See? It just doesn't fit. Even if you don't put the horse in chequerboard you still need 3776yds, over 70% more than than the actual space available.

"Note also, that it is easier to maneuver forlorn hopes, artillery and cavalry thru infantry checkerboarded than in a solid line or two."

And why should they want to do that? Forlorn hopes were tiny in comparison to the main body of foot and did not operate as formed bodies (they were like Napoleonic skirmishers), ECW artillery was not very mobile on the battlefield and the horse were pretty much all on the wings. No need to leave gaps for such movement at all.

OK, this is getting interesting,

First of all I must admit that I haven't been up to Marston Moor for years, so I don't know which houses in Tockwith and Long Marston are survivors from the 17th century.

Villages do expand, and move, so I measured the distance from the road juction in Long Marston to the road junction in Tockwith (as the crow flies, not along the road). This comes to 3600 yards plus. Lumsden reckoned the battlefield was 3 miles wide, which is 5280 yards. Naturally he was probably a bit out but I can't see him confusing 1 and 1/4 miles (2200 yds) with 3 miles. The Scots mile was even longer at ~1973 yds!

"Villages do expand, and move, so I measured the distance from the road juction in Long Marston to the road junction in Tockwith (as the crow flies, not along the road)."

Observation of the OS map will show that both Long Marston and Tockwith are ribbon developments, extending along the road between them. So your distance of 3600 yds is an absolute maximum (which I note is not enough for the full chequerboard deployment of both horse and foot).

Both villages appear to extend about 0.5km beyond the respective road junctions. As I recall from my last visit to the area, the buildings in the villages are not obviously modern.

"Lumsden reckoned the battlefield was 3 miles wide, which is 5280 yards."

Unless he actually walked the ground with a measuring stick (unlikely) any estimate of distance is pure guesswork. And you yourself have shown that the maximum possible distance between the villages is considerably less than his figure.

I reckon we need some sort of contemporary estate map (v unlikely I should think!), or at least 18th century.

Certainly looking at Google Maps Tockwith looks like the older houses (with long narrow gardens) are within a couple of hundred yards from the junction, then newer houses (some very recognisable, others not so) straggling out along the road to Long Marston.

I found Long Marston tricky to decide what was old and new from the satellite view. Anyone in from Yorkshire?

Before anyone gets too excited can I suggest this book as the product of the most recent research available on Marston Moor link

Cooke attempts to put all known regiments in their appropriate place on the battlefield as a part of his work. He has found a few previously overlooked primary sources too. He's of the 3 lines, chequerboard formation BTW.

And this summarises the current state of the battlefield itself link

"Certainly looking at Google Maps Tockwith looks like the older houses (with long narrow gardens) are within a couple of hundred yards from the junction, then newer houses (some very recognisable, others not so) straggling out along the road to Long Marston."

And what may look like "newer houses" may simply be extensions or rebuilds of the original dwellings.

"And this summarises the current state of the battlefield itself link "

The "Terrain and Action Map" from the Battlefields Trust site
PDF link

clearly shows the distance occupied by the Parliamentarian army as no more than about 2km (2200 yds). The Royalist army is more spread out so may possibly have enough room to have deployed in chequerboard formation, but this is still open to conjecture, pending more detailed research and battlefield archaeology (similar to that carried out at Edgehill).

Of course, if the Royalists were deployed in chequerboard and the Parliamentarians not, then the Royalists would have had to rapidly "plug the gaps" to avoid being overwhelmed.

There is a very useful site here that illustrates the Dutch and Swedish methods:
link

This is getting to be a useful discussion. Don't have time to chip in further as I'm just about to leave to re-enact Marston Moor at York. Marston Moor is actually only about 10 – 12 miles from my house so I could actually carry out a recce to check any geographical points.

Mke S has a reasonable point about how would the troops actually fit into the likely deployment area. From memory Newcastle's foot are believed to have not been available to deploy as the Royalist battle line was formed. As mentioned above the plan De Gomme drew up was the ideal deployment given ideal ground. As a result it doesn't suprise me that on the actual ground the battle was fought on the deployment was not a 100% match to the plan. However, the point I am trying to make is not that the plans are are a true representation of the deployment moments before the battle commenced, but an indication of the tactical deployment favoured by Rupert. Hence if the plan shows Chequer board formation Rupert was thinking that Chequer Board formation was his preferred way of deploying the foot. However, this doesn't mean that we have 100% certainty that the formation was actually used, or that the intervals were a full battalion wide etc etc etc. To some extent it also comes down to the game v simulation argument. If you want a good playable game then it probably doesn't matter as long as you get a good game. If you want to simulate the look, the actual decision points and tactical useage then its more important.

Very interesting thread!

As for numbers engaged, I'd say the figures tend to vary a lot from one relation to the other (Parliament for Marston f.ex.)

I always assumed the chequerboard deployment was a) meant to avoid confusion when a first line battalion was pushed back, and b) to allow moving in support without creating the same confusion.

Moreover, the gaps were necessary to position cavalry support, as was standard practice in the TYW. On some prints you see these gaps conveniently filled with a cornet of horse (identified by their standards).

Light battalion guns were generally put in front of their corresponding foot unit (and manhandled during the advance).

Cheers

Romain

"As for numbers engaged, I'd say the figures tend to vary a lot from one relation to the other (Parliament for Marston f.ex.)"

True, which is why I used the lower figure of 14,500 foot. Some sources have it as high as 20,000.

"Moreover, the gaps were necessary to position cavalry support, as was standard practice in the TYW. On some prints you see these gaps conveniently filled with a cornet of horse (identified by their standards)."

Except that in the ECW cavalry are on the wings, not interspersed with the foot.

cavalry and infantry were regularly interspersed, with small numbers of musketeers / dragoons to support cavalry, and small regiments / troops of cavalry amongst the infantry. Once again, Edgehill features both.

Additionally, you suppose you know the width of their infantry formations at deployment, but if you had bothered to investigate the Swedish method of deployment, the "diamond" or "cross" brigade, you will note that it is half as wide as four regiments in a continuous line since two of the regiments are in column. Additionally, musketeers could be in a close order or doubled depending on the situation. So frontages of regiments vary by large amounts – 40% or more – and brigade formations vary by 40% or more. the net is a pretty large variety in formation size.

sorry Mike, but really, with every comment you reveal more and more gaps in your knowledge. such gaps are fine until you become insistent in your personal views.

Basically, you're asking everyone to be flexible enough to accomodate your strongly held views on a topic, citing the difficulty of "knowing", "recorded evidence" "Personal accounts" etc. Yet, none of these same standards apply to your proposition. It's when one only sees one side, especially their own, that credibility becomes an issue, and it's reached that point.

"cavalry and infantry were regularly interspersed, with small numbers of musketeers / dragoons to support cavalry, and small regiments / troops of cavalry amongst the infantry. Once again, Edgehill features both."

I am aware of commanded shot being interspersed with horse but not horse being interspersed with foot. You say Edgehill features both. What evidence can you offer from Edgehill to support the latter?

"Additionally, you suppose you know the width of their infantry formations at deployment, but if you had bothered to investigate the Swedish method of deployment, the "diamond" or "cross" brigade, you will note that it is half as wide as four regiments in a continuous line since two of the regiments are in column."

I refer you to link (already mentioned abve) which shows a the tactical deployment of a Swedish brigade. You will note that it is significantly wider than you suggest. What evidence can you offer for the "diamond" deployment actually being used in an ECW battle?

"Additionally, musketeers could be in a close order or doubled depending on the situation. "

But would not need to be so at the commencement of a battle. Indeed, if anything, the musketeers need space between the files to allow fire by introduction or extraduction, whereas the pikes could (in theory) be in close order rather than order.

"but really, with every comment you reveal more and more gaps in your knowledge. such gaps are fine until you become insistent in your personal views."

I'm afraid I could say the same about you …

"Basically, you're asking everyone to be flexible enough to accomodate your strongly held views on a topic, citing the difficulty of "knowing", "recorded evidence" "Personal accounts" etc. Yet, none of these same standards apply to your proposition. It's when one only sees one side, especially their own, that credibility becomes an issue, and it's reached that point."

Not true. If you read my posts I have already said that the Royalists at Marston Moor could be in "chequerboard" but until someone offers concrete evidence from primary sources to support this actual deployment, I remain sceptical.

I will maintain my view on a particular subject until I am proved wrong. And yes, I have been proved wrong (see TMP link ).

I think the mistake is in assuming there is a right/wrong in the first place. There is, at best, only a "more likely" and "Less likely".

As for edgehill, Osprey's book not only features battleplans (both sides using checkerboard) but presents the story of the counterattacks by the parliamentary cavalry that were mixed in small troops in the parl center.

That four battalions with two in a column formation (one behind the other) are the same width as four in a continuous line is a nonsensical statement at face value.

Doubled or ordered musketeers was probably a decision made by the regimental or brigade commander. No way of knowing, of course.

And "no way of knowing" is something that can be said for most of this discussion, and nearly all the points therein. An aspect of historical research I'm willing to accept, suggest you do the same.

"As for edgehill, Osprey's book not only features battleplans (both sides using checkerboard) but presents the story of the counterattacks by the parliamentary cavalry that were mixed in small troops in the parl center."

Unfortunately, Osprey books are renowned for their variable quality. As I have (repeatedly) said before, I would want to see primary sources to support the proposition that bodies of horse were deployed "mixed in" with the foot or that any army actually used the "chequerboard" formation in any battle of the ECW.

Do you not understand the difference between primary and secondary sources?

"That four battalions with two in a column formation (one behind the other) are the same width as four in a continuous line is a nonsensical statement at face value."

And a statement I have not made.

"Doubled or ordered musketeers was probably a decision made by the regimental or brigade commander. No way of knowing, of course."

As I have already said it is very unlikely that musketeers would be deployed in such close order that they could not execute fire by introduction or extraduction. I presume you understand what I mean by fire by introduction or extraduction?

"And "no way of knowing" is something that can be said for most of this discussion, and nearly all the points therein. An aspect of historical research I'm willing to accept, suggest you do the same."

I have never claimed that my view is absolute truth. That would be farcical. I have however postulated a view that, so far, no one has been able to disprove from primary source material. You do understand the process of historical analysis, I hope?

So much to catch up on…

Huw – I don't have the, er, Cooke Book :-) yet. Does it mention frontages and extent of the battlefield?

Elenderil- A thorough recce is expected! Remember to knock on the doors of all houses in Long Marston and Tockwith and find out how old they are :-)

Horse interspersed with foot – I guess the reserve of Parlt horse is what's being discussed at Edgehill, so probably doesn't count as it's to the rear. However the De Gomme plan of Naseby shows horse interspersed w/ foot. (Though I somehow doubt this will be admissible evidence!)

Also regarding plans etc, De Gomme's map of Edgehill shows Swedish order (as we know it) for the foot and very carefully-drawn chequering of the 5 Royalist infantry brigades and the regiments of horse, even including dashed lines to show that there should be sufficient space for the second line to fit in-between the first line units. The Third Newbury plan shows chequering of the foot too, and interspersing horse (though in this one and Naseby the horse on the flanks have changed to one-unit behind-the-other but still with unit-sized gaps between them).

So, back to Marston Moor I think there are a number of imponderables on the deployment-

How wide was the battlefield?
Were the foot formed in 3ft order or closer?
How many ranks deep were they? (OK so anything apart from 6 would be heresy, but 8 has been strongly proposed for Parlt foot at Edgehill).
Numbers – I'm prepared to accept Mike's here, especially as they are at the low end :-)
Was there a fourth line of Parlimentary foot? Reid thinks so (Scots if I remember)
What was the Scottish Sgt Maj Gen of foot drinking if he couldn't tell one-and-a-quarter miles from three miles?
Where can I get some?

Also there's the obvious comeback. Is there any primary source material that disproves the notion of chequering?