"Commanded Shot?" Topic

I've been reading Decisive Battles of the English Civil War by Malcolm Wanklyn and noted that commanded shot seems to play a more active role than typically seen in wargames.

I know at Edghill the shot deployed in the intervals of the Parliamentary cavalry had little effect, but Wanklyn suggests the same tactics used by the Royalists at Maston Moor may have had a more serious impact on Fairfax's cavalry.

I also noted at Cheriton that fairly large bodies of shot were detached to the stuggle for the wood. Waller seems to have deployed about 1000 men here. Lisle's contingent of Hopton's army also seems to have contained a fairly large number of commanded shot, especially so considering the strength of Hopton's infantry.

As far as wargames game, commanded shot seem to be written off as forlorn hopes with little to do outside initial skirmishing. I'm sure this was often the case, but should games allow more flexibility in detaching shot from their accompanying pike?

Steve
Age of Glory

I am not totally up to the details of the use of commanded shot to support cavalry in the English Civil War. However, I presume that it was largely based on the Swedish practice of the period, as used on the continent (where many an Englishman served in the Swedish army in the 1630's).

The Swedish practice involved placing small units of commanded shot (50-200 muskets, plus perhaps a 3 pounder in support) between cavalry companies. One of the more effective tricks they could pull was when the line was charged by enemy cavalry: the musketeers were expected to fire a salvo in order to halt and disorder the charging enemy cavalry. This would then be followed immediately by a charge by the Swedish cavalry, in an attempt to exploit the momentarily confused state of the enemy.

The use of commanded shot to support cavalry goes all the way back to the French Wars of Religion (1570s) and perhaps further.

Rich

Yep Steve, certainly agree that the commanded shot were significant in many of the ECW battles. I think there may two (poss three) different things going on here -

1- a 'brigade' of commanded shot (eg Appleyard & Leighton at Cheriton) for some reason they generally have 1000 men (?!) and represent a big proportion of the foot of armies that totalled 5-10,000

2- 'penny packets' supporting the cavalry as at Marston Moor, always thought they had a fairly hairy job if their cavalry wing was defeated!

3- traditional Forlorn Hope if you like, sent off to an advanced position as outpost or to occupy a terrain feature.

Hopton seems to have detached off (nearly?) all his musketeers to either flank during the assault on Lansdown Hill.

At Adwalton Moor it seems as if there was a big musketry duel amongst the hedges etc, with Newcastle's pike being left further back in support, until 'that wild and deperate man' Colonel Posthumous Skirton brought the pike up to the assault.

At Cropredy both Waller and the King had a 'brigade' of commanded muskets.

I guess their main advantage was in close terrain, hedges and woods, where pike weren't so useful and enemy horse were not so dominant. The open battlefield of Marston Moor didn't feature afaik a commanded musket 'brigade' but Edgehill (in the hedges), Adwalton, Lansdown, I Newbury, Cropredy, Cheriton, II Newbury and Langport did, and maybe Okey's could be seen as carrying out that role at Naseby, together with the more traditional Parlt Forlorn.

PS how come this topic isn't shown on the ECW board?

(Bug up to its tricks I suppose)

"The open battlefield of Marston Moor didn't feature afaik a commanded musket 'brigade'"

Having said that, my uderstanding is that Fairfax had to make his way through a series of hedgerow and perhaps ditches to make his way to Goring's cavalry wing. Goring's shot, placed in small groups between cavalry units, woud have worn down Fairfax's cavalry, but Goring's hose could finally chew up the few cavalry who managed to get through. ("Marston Moor" (2004) Clark, D., pp.65-66)

Seemed to be extensive musket duels at First Newbury as well. Forlorn Hope rules cover commanded shot but those placed in the horse wings were in groups of about 50 men so perhaps 2 figures to represent each group tops.

I think we really need some new rules that reflect this sort of thing. For example rather than have these pockets of figures firing and the player rolling dice (and probably doing nothing in most firing tables I suspect) they could give the horse they are supporting a plus factor instead. Just a thought.

Good question.

I know of one rules designer who intentionally made it that way, to avoid units of musketeers popping out all over with out their pikes in support contrary to the "feel" for the period. (paraphrasing his words)

I think the history supports it, but as other's have suggested making it work rules-wise is more difficult.

The very small number of ECW gamers i play with, (read 1 other with an occasional wanderer), allow for bodies of commanded muskets for the cavalry against the rules (WECW).

curiiosu as to what the pike and shot version of BP is goign to allow for.

Parliamentary forces appear to have used bodies of commanded shot as forlorn hopes at both Marston Moor and First Civil War the Royalists used shot only battlefield units (eg Shrewsbury foot at Naseby). In all of these cases the units were or a reasonable size. I don't know how big the units of commanded shot deployed amongst the Royalist Horse at Marston Moor or Naseby were for sure but these seem to have been significantly smaller.

In terms of how to treat these in rules. I don't have a problem with large shot only bodies. After all they have a built in disadvantage – no pike support. Providing your rules will punish any such units caught by horse sensible commanders should use them with caution. For smaller bodies I would suggest that they be either regarded as sub units of the relevant cavalry body and so cannot move outside a set distance from the horse. If the horse moves away they should probably either "evaporate" or merge into one larger body.

I don't recall any original account describing what happened to the Royalist shot deployed in support of the horse after the horse advanced to contact. This suggests a couple of possibilities:

1. That they played no more role in the battle (evaporated)
2. That they reformed on other parent bodies of foot and fought with them.
3. They were never used as shown on the deployment maps of De Gomme
4. They had horses and mounted up and fought with the horse (So we are looking at dragoons).

I'd be happy to hear of any opinions or better yet original accounts of how these bodies were used and what they did once the horse attacked.

Commanded shot interlined with the horse was always a crutch for cavalry, used by the side concerned about weakness in in numbers or quality. They fell into disuse in the later 17th C when the horse routinely attacked in linear formation at greater speeds.

It seems a risky job, requiring coordinated discipline and timing on the part of both the horse and the shot whether receiving the charge at the halt by fire or with a controlled counter-charge once the attackers were disordered by fire. It must have been easy to fire too soon, too late, or just get nervous.

Their fate was to be overrun if their horse broke promptly, otherwise I don't recall much in accounts about their exploits. Presumably they would remain by their assigned regiments where possible and try to make themselves useful unless reformed by their officers into useful tactical bodies for use elsewhere.

They would be at risk and an impediment to friendly cavalry movements if standing in the middle of a back and forth fight, and taking up a position in any available cover would have been the natural recourse for such small bodies or for individuals if they lost cohesion.

Per the Campaign Osprey, at Marston Moor (July 1644), packets of 50 commanded shot were interlined with the regiments in all three lines of Parliamentary horse and were deployed in immediate rear support of some of the front line Royalist regiments. This more economical use by the Royalists suggests they did not want or need to draw more men away from the infantry lines, but felt some support was needed to help against the more numerous enemy horse.

From a rules perspective, we either model the subunits and their behavior explicitly in some way (which can get as complicated as you like) or abstract them as an bonus for the horse they are assigned to, perhaps using some shot figures as a marker for the bonus until it is lost or the surviving commanded shot figure markers are drawn off and consolidated into an all-musketeer unit.

For supporting the horse, you want good troops that know what they are doing, but no special training would be required to serve in a commanded body of musketeers acting in their usual tactical roles, so in rules I think the criteria for doing one or the other should be different.