"28mm Scottish Pikemen - Early medieval?" Topic

Looking for something late Dark Ages and early medieval. More 1100 to 1200 ish. Robert the Bruce, Wallace, et al.

Already checked out Front Rank and Renegade, didn't see anything.

Thanks for any leads.

It's long spear until Flodden (1513). For specific Scots ranges for Flodden there's Dixon or Reiver. For specific Scots ranges for the earlier period, there's Ebob or Claymore. Many Scots would have looked like their English counterparts in either time period.

The claymore figures are very nice, well worth a look.

I have mixed claymore, old glory, mirliton and gripping beast together.

cheers
Matt

Scheltrum do scots pikes for their Medieval Scots range. scheltrum.co.uk/me28.html

They are excellent figures – we used loads for our Battle of Harlaw refight. You can see lots of photos showing the figures here: aberdeenwargamesclub.com/?p=2796 and here aberdeenwargamesclub.com/?p=2754

There is a list of manufacturers of 28mm medieval figures here. It may help point you in the right direction for places to look…

link

Some of the ranges in the Dark Ages list (found on the right hand side) may have some usefull figures.

I used a mix of Scheltrum,Claymore and several Old Glory packs (dark ages clear up through wars of the roses all have some figures in them that will work-and some that may have armor that is too late) along with some old odds and ends that I had around from QualityCast etc…Scheltrum are my favorite for the Wars of Independece. They just have a ton of character I think.
The Bruce and Wallace are from 1297-1314 for the "popular battles" and could have some armor that is not right for 1100-1200 range. If you pick a few from here and a few from there though (from the list above) you can get plenty of figures to fit into either end of this time frame in my opinion. I think that Scots army at the battle of the Standard (1138) are going to look quite different from the Scots army at Bannockburn (1314), but a few unarmored spearmen might work for both eras. Some people disagree that during the Wars of Independence the Scots would look just like the English, but I want my Scots to look a little more ragged than my English. Just my taste.

Allen

I'm the same as Bluewillow. Old Glory, Claymore and some Ebob. Ebob does not mix with the rest due to size (true 25's and a bit skinny too) so they had to be their own units. Mind you I think their command figures of Wallace, Bruce and Edward are excellent.

Rampantlion is quite right; there would a considerable difference between 1138 and 1314, but chiefly among the men-at-arms…..barded horses, bacinets, a bit of plate here and there as opposed to plain mail shirts/gloves/coifs and sim-ple helmets of the 1130s.
Not so much difference with the infantry really, and – as ever – no reason to think that Scottish troops looked any different from English ones. Probably best not to bother with any unarmoured spearmen; they really were not in demand.

For 11th-12th century, e.g. William the Lion, I would stick with Gripping Beast or Perry First Crusaders.

However, Wallace, Bruce et al were late 13th-early 14th century. So the GB late crusaders would work (less the Teutonics of course) for the less well equipped, but most of Claymore range are ideal. Just avoid Claymore's English knights in late 13th century armour. Personally, I don't like Old Glory, and Mirliton are hit and miss. The Scheltrum sculpts look okay, but they are not in the same league as Claymore.

As an aside, the terms Dark Ages and Early Medieval cover the same period. By the end of the Dark Ages, you are entering the High Medieval period, i.e. 11th-13th centuries.

It's long spear until Flodden (1513). For specific Scots ranges for Flodden there's Dixon or Reiver. For specific Scots ranges for the earlier period, there's Ebob or Claymore. Many Scots would have looked like their English counterparts in either time period.

Spot on…. the Braveheart Syndrome is a disease that many suffer from :O)

The best mini's for the period of Bruce's wars with the English would probably be Claymore Castings. Why? Well, they are a bit later, though most of the armours of the ordinary soldiers are fine (the nobility and knights have armour that may be considered too advanced). Also, their range is very well sculpted, a joy to paint and the mini's are nice and dynamic in terms of pose.

Here's a link to their website:

claymorecastings.co.uk

As an aside, the terms Dark Ages and Early Medieval cover the same period. By the end of the Dark Ages, you are entering the High Medieval period, i.e. 11th-13th centuries.

Yes, this is very true. The label Dark Ages is a bit misleading as 'we' actually know quite a lot about how folk lived and how they went to war etc.

Darrell.

Darrell Hindley Figure Painter:
darrellhindley.co.uk
Just Add Water II Blog (Painting etc):
link
La Journee Blog (Hundred Years War):
link
Gewalthaufen Blog (Late 15th Cebtury Blog):
gewalthaufen.blogspot.co.uk

Try EBob – link

Also Mirliton's Braveheart figs
link

The original Ebob rebellion range and the mirliton figures are fine if you want to recreate Mel Gibson's fantasy movie, but not for anything else. Wargammers and medieval historians who are not military specialists tend to be a generation or two behind the times when looking at the late 13-early 14th century, so if you want appropriate figures look at early HYW ranges. The more recent pike figures from ebob, the scheltrum armoured pikemen and the Claymore guys (though marketed for for Otterburn) are dandy, but since there was no visible difference between English, Scottish or French troops you should be able to find quite an extensive range of figures if you buy from several manufacturers and variety is the key thing here – remember that everybody had to supply their own kit. Avoid unarmoured spearmen and the rabble with pitchforks so dear to the hearts of figure designers and you won't go far wrong.

I think for mid-1200s thru Falkirk you are fine with the Mirliton. A large number of the Mirliton medievals from their Complete Unity line covering the dates in question are right on the money, plus their Scottish as some of their rabble. I agree the Mel Gobson-Wallace figure is not correct and any late 1200s knight can be used for Wallace. But Mirliton has those. Triming helmet decoration on some figs might Be necessary. I'd also highly recommend Curteys medievals covering this time period. The Scottish knights would be very similar to the English. Heck they likely still some spoke French in their nobility. Also the Fireforge figs can be mixed in with some modifications to helmets and without the capes. The Ebob English and Scots are ok for variety here and there, except they are on raised bases nod a bit smaller.

Curteys, Fireforge and Mirliton match very well. They form the bulk of my 2d Barons War project, which I will also use with some modification for Sterling Bridge, Falkirk and Bannockburn.

Look at the Project Lewes website for ideas. The time frame is very similar and can be used up through Bannockburn unless you are a real purest. The website is very good.

Go to the Old Glory minis sight. They have pictures of their Scots spearmen.

I use them for 1250-1485.

Edit: photos below

link
link
& Dark Age Scots for comparison;
link

I always see the Scots as looking pretty much like the English, except wearing their grandad's armor! There used to be some good figs from RalPartha/Rafm; but they'd look small beside modern 28mm.

There's really nothing to suggest that Scots should look any different from English troops, but you could make a -not-unreasonable# argument for a proportion of the men-at-arms in 1296/98 as looking a bit old-fashioned since the Scots had n't had a war since god was a boy. That said, even in 1297 a senior officer in the English administration described Wallace and his followers as all being 'well mounted and well-armed' – which in that context means 'well-armoured'.
A useful device is just to use your English early HYW figures but with alternative command stands with figures in appropriate Scottish heraldry.
More than happy to provide a reading list of reputable scholarship for anyone who wants …mail me …. thathistoryblokeATbtinternetDOTcom.

Why Scheltrum? Do you really want figures from a guy who puts almost no photos on his site, and hasn't updated that site since 2012?

I have seen the figures – rough.

Beaumap, I appreciate your opinion, I guess we all have different tastes in figures. I kind of like those thicker sculpted figures myself. They have a lot of variety and character in facial expressions, etc…I do mix in a bunch of other manufacturers as well though. I wanted my Scottish army to look a bit rough (Wallace's army at Falkirk, more than Bruce's better equipped/trained army at Bannockburn). I do agree with you on the photos, I had a to do a fair amount of digging to find photos of them on the internet. As for the owner, Sholto is a great guy to do business with.

Allen

Fair dos

Sholto really is a very helpful man, but most of the figures are really pretty unsuitable for 13/14th Century regardless of whether you like the style. We're using a mix of Claymore with some Foundry and Old Glory for variety. I understand that Mirliton had plans for more appropriate 13/14th C infantry figures, but I don't know if anything ever came of that.

Chris, I still like debating that these figures are not accurate for Scots for Stirling Bridge or Falkirk. I may be wrong, but I just don't agree that there was any significant amount of plate or bascinets among the Scots for these battles. I may have been too romanticized by the "classic" authors on this, but I just don't see these two Scottish armies being as well equipped as the English. Some of the stuff like the Scots having short bows that are somehow way inferior to the English bows is silly IMHO, but the nature of the tactics alone of these Scottish forces suggests a lighter armed more hit and run army. I don't think that these tactics were guided by a lack of horse alone, but by an inferiorly armed army in general. Fun to debate at least…

The short bow certainly is a Victorian invention – courtesy of Gardner and Oman, but the same can be said for the 'older armour' thing, and from the same sources; Gardiner and Oman who were faithfully echoed by McKisack and others. There's not a shred of evidence for it,but through repetition it has become an article of faith like 'ragged' Confederates or the idea that all Battle of Britain pilots were posh, blond Oxbridge officers (with moustaches) in Spitfires despite the higher incidence of Hurricanes and the large number of working class/lower middle class sergeant pilots.
Things to bear in mind…although the Scots of 1296 had n't had a war for a very long time, things had been brewing up for a few years so (especially in a very fashion-conscious period) people had probably been buying new kit and – partly because the 1280s/90s were good for agriculture and partly simply because there had n't been a war for a very long time – people had money in their pockets. There was certainly a steady trade for armour from England, Ireland, France and the Low Countries. New armour did n't really cost any more than old armour so why would you buy old kit? If you're a camera person it would be like buying a Nikon D80 for $1,000 USD when you could get a D7000 for $1,100. USD
In 1297 even a very obscure younger son of the parish gentry and his buddies could afford good mounts and armour (see above.
The Stirling Bridge army would have had relatively few men-at-arms …some were keeping a low profile and rather a lot were POWs…but the infantry element of the previous year had seen no action at all. Most their kit was pretty easy to make to a good standard at home and the rest of it was pretty cheap to buy.
Remember that the guys who were obliged to serve in the rank and file were reasonably well off and had a vested interest (longevity) in having decent kit.
Making an aesthetic choice for a wargame army is a different issue; if you fancy Scots with older armour then that's what you do and more power to your elbow. I understand the new Bannockburn centre deliberately uses that as a device to identify the different forces, though they know it's not valid historically.
I've no idea why one would think that the tactics suggest lighter equipment; they're not really any different to any other infantry-heavy army of the period other than the whole army drawing up in circles at (and only at)Falkirk. If anything the static approach would indicate heavy protection since mobility was not a concern. The tactics of the day really were not 'hit and run', they were 'march about, demonstrate and enforce authority and avoid battle unless the situation look really promising'. The only reason Wallace fights at Falkirk at all is because Edward has caught him on the hop and he hopes that by taking a really strong position Edward will not press for a battle….we all make mistakes…..
Bacinets were not de riguer for either side in the 1290s – nor in France or Italy or England either, but they certainly staart to come into use by the mid 1290s and plates on arms/elbows (as opposed to 'plate' overall) were commonplace 40 or 50 years before that…possibly earlier, but that's a a bit before my period; my work is pretty much focussed on 1290-1350.
Classic authors…there are two sets of vested interests here…Gardiner, Oman and others right up to De Vries have an Anglo-centric 'English are best' agenda and several Scottish historians of the non-military variety have either aped them through laziness (pretty common)or have a romantic nationalist agenda of 'our boys just had pointy sticks and woolly vests' – that's pretty common too, especially among populist writers who don't want to do too much primary research. Some modern writers (including some serious and very fine social/politics/economics scholars) who are not interested in the mechanics of war have tended to follow Gardiner and Oman our of habit as much as anything else.
All said and done, I suppose it depends on where you want to draw your evidence. Contemporary record and narrative material is absolutely clear that the Scots were equipped just like the English – generally in different proportions of spears, archers and MAA, but even then, most of the fighting from 1310 onwards, and a good deal of what went before (Roslin for example) was done by bodies of men-at-arms with no infantry presence at all and the Scots held their own perfectly well in that genre, which certainly does not indicate poorer horses or armour.

If you have n't done so already, it's worth checking out wage bills and restauro documents – there's plenty of them in Bain's CDS2 & 3 – and the work of Andrew Ayton and Anne Curry. If you don't have access to CDS I have a photocopy set of Vols 2 & 3 and a fair raft of military stuff from other places if you're interested; after 5 books, a thesis and several papers etc. I really don't see me using them again!
You're quite right about short bows and wider opinion has pretty much come round to that now; the same will happen with the 'old armour' thing, but really that's what analytical research scholarship is for – otherwise there's not much point in doing it. In due course research findings do win the day. A few years back I was pretty fiercely attacked for suggesting tentatively that Robert I may have deliberately manoeuvred to have an opportunity for battle at Stirling rather than elsewhere in 1314; now I find that two political history scholars (both of whom I respect very much indeed) who were highly critical of the idea have come to see it as a 'given'. Equally, their work has changed my understanding of various aspects of political activity and of the economic picture which in turn has influenced my understanding of obligation and of personal wealth and what people could afford to buy or how they could afford their ransoms, so everyone helps everyone else in the long run….which is great.

very cogent Ugly – thanks.

However, something must have made Scottish archery less 'battle-winning' than Welsh, and later, English. Any suggestions? (If Scots bows and bowman-ship were so good, why not increase the volume of bowmen, rather than lose so many battles against the Anglo-Welsh longbow?)

However, something must have made Scottish archery less 'battle-winning' than Welsh, and later, English. Any suggestions?

It takes years of relentless training to turn out a good archer. Maybe the Scots just didn't have the "everyman an archer" mentality that's often attributed to the English?

Beaumap and Major…..Big questions from both of you – and very good ones. Partly it's cultural; more Scots favoured being spearman, same applies to the Low Countries/France. Why that should be is open to debate, but I'd say time for training is part of the issue, however population size (in Scotland anyway)is probably relevant as well. English armies were simply bigger, so there were simply more archers.
'Losing so many battles'….Dupplin Muir is really the crucial example I suppose. At Falkirk the role of the archers was to wear down the Scots to a point where the men-at-arms could get in about them. At Dupplin the archers had become a much more controlled function and were able to seriously disrupt the Scots as they advanced, though even (and it's really the most impressive 'longbow' battle) there was still a hard fight and it was a close-run thing.
The archery at Halidon Hill and Neville's Cross really did n't have all that much impact compared to the Scots having to cross a marshy area and or drag themselves up a long steep hill – or both at Halidon – again each battle was decided by a hard melee and a close-run thing.
Weather is an issue twice over. To be effective massed archery needs an absence of wind and rain, so in Scotland there would be less opportunity to train – same in the north of England where archery was less of a 'thing' than in Cheshire for example….same might apply to Cornwall and Devon which don't seem to have been famous for archers. Also – given the lovely Scottish weather – you might have buckets of archers and never get to use them.
Probably the most important factor is the general nature of Anglo-Scottish war; mostly about small action between forces of man-at-arms rather than whopping great battles between armies of manoeuvre.
There was n't really an 'every man an archer' mentality, though in the later HYW there was a policy of specifically recruiting archers in greater numbers for service in France, (possibly as a means of encouraging the French to avoid major actions in the first place) but it's important to distinguish between armies raised for France in the 1340s and – for example – those raised for Scotland in 1297/8 or 1314. Archery had not yet become so important a factor generally and if it rained or was windy (imagine that…bad weather in Scotland…) they'd not be that much of an asset.
It's also easy to exaggerate the marksmanship element; there are examples of men being issued with bows or spears at random, but there again it's all about concentration of shooting rather than individual skill …they were n't all Robin Hood.
Final thought – archery was n't so 'cool' in Scotland or France so we don't find French or Scottish 'parish gentry' types choosing to serve as archers the way we do from Cheshire or Lancashire.
There may well be lots of other factors, those are just the ones that seem most significant to me.

Wasn't the problem in France that the nobility/crown started to ape the English system of regular practice with the bow, and then changed their minds? Sort of a, "What the heck were we thinking? Armed peasants?", moment.

The Scots were simply never numerous enough to produce enough archers to compete with the English system….

I think the same thing is true for Knights/mounted men at arms. They seemed to always be way outnumbered in cavalry.

Always outnumbered full stop. Most of the time that was n't too important since almost all the campaigning was at the level of a few score or a couple of hundred men-at-arms. I understand the same applies to some archery actions in France in the 1400s, but that's a bit out of my zone. Big armies are a different matter; three times the troops and three times the men-at-arms accordingly.
Great War Ace – English archers of the status recruited for campaigns abroad (France, Scotland, Spain) really were n't peasants in the sense of blokes who till the land; they mostly came from the kind of families who tenanted and managed the farms rather than actually dug the soil and shifted the . Quite a lot would just do a campaign or maybe two, but others made a career of it.

@ugly: Serfdom in England was almost nonexistent compared with France. I agree that the cream of the crop archers were the better off men, and it was among this segment of archers that the HYW armies were recruited. But this doesn't answer my question: iirc, the French in the aftermath of their defeats temporarily initiated a system of archery practice inspired by the English system. The possible danger to the aristocracy of masses of bow-armed peasants made them reconsider and discontinue the arming of peasants with bows and arrows, in fact making it illegal (again). Is your understanding of this the same as mine?…

The serf-class would n't really have been expected to make much of a showing generally, though that might not be the case for better-off ones. Servile status is tricky thing – it does n't really equate precisely to slavery as we think of it; the serf was attached to the land, but also had rights in the land and could be quite prosperous – in fact he (or she) might rent and sublet land to free persons and we can see examples of free persons marrying serf-heiresses to get access to land especially in times of high prices.
Prevalence of servile status is kind of tricky too. By 1300 it had long been in decline across western Europe generally, but there was still a good deal of it to be seen. In France it does n't really disappear until well into the early modern period, in England it's not all that uncommon even in the mid-16th Century, whereas in Scotland it's gone by about 1370 or so. Nobody really knows quite why that should be the case – the W of I has an impact and the general decline of servile status has an impact, but that does n't really explain it since other places had the same sort of factors in play.
I'm not a French or English historian, so I don't have a formed opinion about things in either country save where they meet up with Scottish stuff. I'd have a look at Michael Prestwich's book 'Something something something; The English Experience' (I don't have it to hand to check the title) and I think I'd have a shufti at Jonathan Sumption's work; if they have nothing much then I'd check out their bibliographies for relevant papers/theses. Sumption's very weak (to be polite about it…far too trusting of Victorian writers) in regard to Scottish aspects, but (despite being a lawyer) he's pretty well-respected on English and French matters.
I don't know if there's a wider relevance, but maybe there's a general difference in recruitment and articulation. French troops were mostly in service to a regional lord so his personal preferences/ideas may have taken more precedence and given rise to different and practices (and perhaps vary from time to time as son succeeded father) from one region to another, whereas for English and Scottish ones national identity is a lot more important so the king's policies perhaps have more impact? Also (peasant's revolt notwithstanding) French lordship could be rather less secure than lordship in England or Scotland, so fear of the peasantry might well be a factor….perhaps try Barbara Tuchman 'A Distant Mirror' to start with.
If you come across anything significant I'd be interested to hear your thoughts..you've brought up an interesting topic!

I've read A Distant Mirror twice, but that was years ago. Perhaps my understanding as stated in my previous post was reinforced by Tuchman….

On reflection I'd imagine Distant Mirror is pretty dated by now; medieval historiography for England and Scotland has moved on a long way and the same may well be true for France. There must be an English-language university with a medieval France course so maybe checking out their reading list …or of course a French university if you have the lingo. In the meantime, if you like, I'll ask around and see if any of my former colleagues has any suggestions.