"Small actions of the ECW" Topic

I have been reading thru the ruleset "File Leader" as I embark on a Battle of the Severn project and I have a few questions about small battles of the ECW:
1) In the rules, the basic maneuver unit is a company. For infantry, a company can be shot or pike…in smaller battles, would individual homogeneous companies of pike or shot be moved around the battlefield or would they be mixed companies?

2) In the rules, it appears that pike-armed companies have no benefit in combat against shot (only cavalry) in combat, was this case at this level of battle (a few hundred per side)? Was pike only beneficial against mounted troops?

Thanks so much for your insight!

…And try getting mounted cavalry to make a kill with a pistol shot.

I'd go for another set of rules. Try 'Witchfinder General'. If you leave out the supernatural element, and use the 'loose formation' rules, you have a very workable set of ECW skirmish rules, roughly on the level of one figure = eight men.

You might find our club set interesting:

wfgamers.org.uk/WWAE.htm

The rules do distinguish the combat effectiveness of units which are mainly pike and those which are musket only. We play games with around 15 to 20 infantry stands (represents 1500 to 2000 men) and similar number of cavalry (750 to 1500 men) but could go smaller quite easily.

PAR,

A company was the smallest structured formation on the battlefield. Soldiers were trained to move and fight as part of that body and they would consist solely of musketeers or pikemen. Mixed formations would be built using these standard blocks, so no you would not get pikemen and musketeers in the same company.

As to the effectiveness of pike in smaller actions. Well, reading the accounts, all the work was done by the chaps with the noisy smelly bang sticks. Pikemen need mass to have any sort of effectiveness and a fifty man company is simply not mass.

The ECW saw the rise of the musketeer at the expense of the pikeman. The former could do a lot more jobs then the latter and showed that they were quite prepared to engage in close quarter nastiness with the butt end of a heavy musket.

So, yes, in my opinion, at the level of action depicted by FL, the pikemen are pretty much spectators and outclassed by the far more useful musketeers.

IAWS,

Yes, you try getting a real chap mounted on a real horse to actually hit anything with a pistol…

With all due respect, Baccus, in the ECW there are examples of single companies being formed of both musket and pike, and in a rough ratio of 2 : 1.

The Royalist garrison of the fort at South Shields, when it was stormed by the Scots in early 1644, consisted of round-about 100 men, 60 odd of them musketeers, 30 odd pike, and a few officers.

At the siege of Morpeth Castle by Montrose, later that year, the Scottish garrison comprised 5 companies of infantry (roughly 500 men). Somerville, the Scottish commander of the castle, complained that a third of his men were useless to him because they only had pikes. (This seems to imply companies of 100 men, with a 2 : 1 musket to pike ratio).

During the siege, the garrison made a sally on the Royalist trench lines, were beaten back by cavalry, but were saved by sheltering under the pike that supported them. At most, there could only have been about 150 odd pikemen, but I don't suppose the whole garrison were involved in the sally.

There must be other exapmles.

With all due respect, Baccus, in the ECW there are examples of single companies being formed of both musket and pike, and in a rough ratio of 2 : 1.

The Royalist garrison of the fort at South Shields, when it was stormed by the Scots in early 1644, consisted of round-about 100 men, 60 odd of them musketeers, 30 odd pike, and a few officers.

At the siege of Morpeth Castle by Montrose, later that year, the Scottish garrison comprised 5 companies of infantry (roughly 500 men). Somerville, the Scottish commander of the castle, complained that a third of his men were useless to him because they only had pikes. (This seems to imply companies of 100 men, with a 2 : 1 musket to pike ratio).

During the siege, the garrison made a sally on the Royalist trench lines, were beaten back by cavalry, but were saved by sheltering under the pike that supported them. At most, there could only have been about 150 odd pikemen, but I don't suppose the whole garrison were involved in the sally.

There must be other exapmles.

A term company is perhaps misleading. I use it refer to a formed body of 30-60 50 men depending on circumstances. In your example of South Shields the garrison would have been organised into three bodies (which I would define as 'companies'), two armed with muskets and one with pike.

The methods of fighting, weapon handling and drill are completely different for the two arms. You cannot have them ordered together in the same body. It simply wouldn't have worked.

@ Baccus: So why was a 'company' of pike included in the garrison of the fort at South Shields, when another 'company' of musketeers could have been fitted in instead?

Somerville, at Morpeth, explicitly refers to FIVE companies, a third of EACH company being his redundant pikemen. No separate 'companies' of pike and shot there.

I note 'Baccus' is, of course, Peter Berry, the author of 'File Leader'.

The bit I've never really put my finger on was how it worked if you had a few companies.

So, as JL correctly says, a company consisted both of pikemen and musketeers. I must say I imagine them forming a 'mini-regiment' if you like in the field, ie centre of pike, two wings of shot. Presumably 'files' of 6 could be detached off in needed.

When a regiment deployed, all the pike from its several companies were massed in the middle, and the shot on the wings.

So what happens if you turn up to a large skirmish/small battle with, say 3 companies of foot? Do they all move around independently as 'mini-regiments' or do they all form up as one block with pike in the centre and muskets on the wings – which presumably could be deployed away somewhere if required.

I think Pete's approach with File Leader was appropriate as it assumes the second option, which is at least reasonable, and makes the game mechanics rather easier in a game that's certainly at the fun end rather than the simulation end of the spectrum.

Often thought that the Warhammer ECW rules could be useful for this sort of game, but never tried it – anyone?

Warhammer ECW crossed my mind, too. But, I've played them, and there's still a dis-junction between pike and shot, whatever scale of action you might want to pitch them at.

I've tried a good many ECW small action/skirmish rules over the years, with varying degrees of disapointment. I've tried 'Witchfinder General',too, and they push most of the buttons, as they say. Next to that, I still like Peter Berry's 'Once Upon a Time in the West Country'; although too individual for what the OP wants here. I must admit, I could never get away with 'File Leader'.

Warhammer ECW crossed my mind, too. But, I've played them, and there's still a dis-junction between pike and shot, whatever scale of action you might want to pitch them at.

I've tried a good many ECW small action/skirmish rules over the years, with varying degrees of disapointment, until I discovered 'Witchfinder General' recently. They push most of the buttons, as they say. Next to that, I still like Peter Berry's 'Once Upon a Time in the West Country'; although too individual for what the OP wants here. I must admit, I could never get away with 'File Leader'.

The Perfect Captain has rules for small dust-ups in this period. These are a variant of their "Spanish Fury" rules.

link

Rules are free, they request you donate to charity.

JL,

I think a little loose terminology on my part may be at the heart of this misunderstanding. The term 'company' was a bit of a moveable feast, so let's start this over again.

Yes, in theory, ECW Foot regiments consisted of a number of companies, each in theory approximately 100 strong. Each of these companies consisted of both pike and shot, but the important thing is that this was an administrative unit. The company would be further subdivided into, lets call them 'divisions' although the term 'squadrons' or 'troops' could perhaps be called into play.

However, there were smaller, sub-regimental units raised and these would be on a company basis and were often understrength. For example, in his 1642 actions, Thomas Fairfax made great use of a body of approximately 250 musketeers operating as five effectively independent companies with no regimental structure.

To bring this back to the point you make about the Morpeth garrison. Yes, there were five companies, but each company would have to be subdivided by arm into three divisions.

Even when companies were regimented into larger formations on a battlefield, the regiment/battalia were not monolithic blocks but were formed up of a number of divisions fighting in concert.

I'll repeat, you cannot have a division consisting of both arms in the same formation – it simply would not work.

Yes, I am he wot wrote FL. One of my favorite rules sets and have had many an enjoyable game with them. I'll never claim that they are a 'simulation' or that they give an air of gritty realism to games set in the Great Rebellion, but they are fast and they do make the players think about what they are doing. Sorry you didn't get on with them, but that's the nature of wargaming and if we all liked the same thing it would be a poorer hobby.

From what I have read of File Leader (read thru a few times), I like it. I haven't had a chance to play it yet however. Peter, the divisions make sense…if I can followup with another question (and essentially re-ask Timbo's):

In a small battle such as Severn, with a few hundred foot per side, would those divisions of pike and shot typically form up as one large battalion, with sleeves of shot flanking a pike center or would things be more flexible; divisions of either moving around the battlefield? I realize it probably depended on alot of factors…I am just trying to develop a mental image of what a smaller battle would look like.

At Severn, it is mentioned there was a "push of pike", so it seems that these fellas got into the scrum as well…

Thanks so much for the great info and insight!

Baccus:

The case of Fairfax's musketeers might be one of necessity over choice. In 1642 things were very much makeshift for everyone, and there could well have been a lack of trained pikemen at the time. Although later in his Memoirs, Fairfax does describe himself taking shelter from Royalist cavalry under a stand of pikes.

If, as you say, a 'company' (c.100 men) was further subdivided into divisions, why should there be three divisions if there were only two kinds of arms -musket and pike? I haven't come across this notion of 'division' (except in 'File Leader'). Can you direct me to any primary sources?

My primary sources are:

'The Taking of the Fort at South Shields' [A Parliamentarian pamphlet, summarised, amongst other places in Reid's 'All the King's Armies']
'Memoirs of the Somervills'

it was normal for companies to be raised as say 100 men with both pike and shot and then as they formed up for battle the pike of many companies would be formed in a block with the musketeers in separate wings which would manoeuvre as. such. The pike would forme a grosse or large body that musketeers could operate around, skirmish along hedges from and retire on when threatened. The grosse of pike gave a solidity to the whole body.
The memoirs of Johan Fietz who fought in the Prussian army late in the 17th century describes pike in a siege assault being able to get at men in ditches and on walls.
A reenactor friend once told me that pike are very useful when crossing barricades or low walks because they can clear them of defenders.
Given that the musket is slow to load and that pikemen were often armoured a body. of them could be useful in a skirmish., acting as a base and deliverng a charge if necessary.

Thank you, Lewisgunner: So a company of pike and shot was BOTH an administrative AND tactical unit (as illustrated by the examples I gave).
And at company or regimental level, divisions of pike and shot could act independently of each other, or cooperate with each other. Whereas, in the 'File Leader' rules they can only operate independently of each other. In fact, that a tray might be composed of pikemen seems to have little bearing on the rules.

B6mm

"You try getting a real chap on a real horse to actually hit anything with a pistol"

Eh?

I know this can't be done in File Leader because of the modifier to firing mounted. But do you expect me to dismiss all those examples derived from the real world found in Cruso's 'Cavallerie' of bodies of horse letting fly with pistols?

Am I to disregard the fact that most cavalry saddles had two pistol holsters, i.e. to hold pistols? And disregard the importance of pistol-proof breastplates for cavalry?

Or should I just disregard File Leader?

JL,

As I said, the term 'company' can be used in different ways, so yes both tactical and administrative.

As to how a 100 strong company could be subdivided and ordered I'd suggest that you have a look at contemporary drill books – Bariffe's book is probably the best example for the ECW. There you will see that the company is formed into three bodies.

In FL, you can do what you like. You can form little groups of Shot,Pike,Shot and move them as a single body, or you can use them independently. You make the decision to take either option. Both were used under different circumstances at different times and places. If you want to introduce a 'brigading' rule (as was done in the AWI version of the rules) which allows a group of bases to act in concert, this is easily done and a quick email to me will provide it.

FL are what they are. A very simple, quick set of rules reflecting my thoughts on a scale of action that seemed appropriate to the ECW. Use them or don't use them, but always be prepared to chop, change and alter them to your requirements and your own views. The ideas in them were not designed to be the immutable last word on the subject or provide comprehensive answers to everything.

IAS,

This really is a non-issue. In my opinion, (and I am very, very often wrong), Cruso's book has lots of very pretty pictures, and yes, Horse were equipped with things that went 'Bang', but the real weapon of a cavalryman was a sword.

Cruso may, or may not reflect the 'real world' in terms of ECW practice…

If you think pistol armed cavalry are severely underpowered in FL, then the answer is simple. Improve their chances to hit and disregard the firing mounted modifier. I won't lose any sleep over this and I am sure that you'll have a game that satisfies your view of the period.

Everyone's a winner.

Cruso's book was published in 1632, and reprinted in 1644, so it must have struck a relevant chord with some people.

Cruso's book is to a large extent based on various foreign texts such as the cavalry manuals written by Melzi (Melzo), Basta and Wallhausen as well as François de la Noue 's famous "Discourses".
None of these were contemporary with Cruso, let alone the ECW (Melzi was published in 1611, Basta posthumously in 1612, Wallhausen in 1616 and La Noue as early as 1587) and reflect their experence of battle rather than the combat enviroment of 1632 or 1642.

Basicly those manuals were written for a time when "Battle cavalry" still wore extensive armour that was more or less "sword proof". (As witnessed by Gustavus instruction for his cavalry to use their swords to kill the horse rather than thrusting in vain against the armour of the cuirassier). The pistol could penetrate many parts of the armour _but_ only if used correctly. That is when fired at point-blank range, preferably close enough to touch the enemy with the muzzle. La Noue considers 3 paces to be the effective range of a pistol while Basta instructed cuirassiers only to fire when they were close enought to injure the enemy with the flame of the muzzle blast.

The sword was still important but it played the role of sidearm and need to be combined with the pistol to be most effective. Pistol & sword was superior to pistol or sword used alone.

Dutch military reformer Johann von Nassau-Siegen's training instruction for Harquebusiers stresses the point that the officers must make sure that the trooper drew their swords and foguht on in the melee rather than simply firing their pistols and then falling backd. Later on he describes that if a company company found itself fighting with sword alone it could only resist a company attacking with pistol as well as sword if the former was able to prevent the later from penetrating into their formation. (Compare with La Noue's statement "…that the Reiter are never so dangerous as when they be mingled with the enemy, for then be they all fire.") In another text he wrote that "He who in the melee first strikes with the sword and then uses the pistol will have the advantage". Basta also favoured the use of pistol and sword together, the Cuirassiers were to "entrust their cause to the point of their swords" once the pistol had been used.

This was still how cavalry fought when Cruso published his book in 1632 (as shown for example by Chemnitz description of the tactics used by the cavalry of Gustavus) but by the 1640's and the ECW you would have a diffrent combat enviroment. Not only would cuirassier armour be very rare indeed and limited to a few units but the troopers lacked the training and experience of their continetal counterparts which would limit their ability to hit targets at range or when moving at speed. I doubt than any ECW cavalry in 1642 could have repeated the Cronberg cuirassiers feat of shooting down every ensign of the Scots brigade during the battle of Breitenfeld to take one example. The question is how much this lack of training limited the use of the pistol as a melee weapon and at which point in time ECW troops began to develop skills equal to those found in the war in Germany?