"Ferocious Cornish and Fanatical Whitecoats in the ECW?" Topic
11 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please do not post offers to buy and sell on the main forum.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the English Civil War Message Board
Action Log
21 Jan 2017 11:52 p.m. PST by Editor in Chief Bill
- Removed from Renaissance Discussion board
Areas of InterestRenaissance
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Recent Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Showcase ArticleThe Editor tries out a boardgame - yes, a boardgame - from battle-market magazine.
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
sjwalker38 | 16 Jun 2014 8:27 a.m. PST |
Reading up on my next project after a break of 30+ years from the ECW, in which time a lot of the views of the period have changed significantly , got me thinking about a couple of things. Were the Cornish foot really particularly ferocious during this period and, if so, why? It's not a reputation they seem to have had in the 300 years before or since, so why this particular conflict? In similar vein, why did Newcastle's Whitecoats make such a determined last stand at Marrston Moor, given that most foot in similar circumstances would either break and run or lay down their arms and happily surrender. What prompted them to go down fighting – political or religious fanaticism, inspiring leadership or something else? All opinions very welcome! |
Phillius | 16 Jun 2014 1:01 p.m. PST |
I always think the Cornish are horrendously overrated. They certainly appear to have performed really well when Beville Grenville (? I think) was leading from the front. I'm not so sure that after he disappeared from the scene they were anything other than ordinary. Newcastles whitecoats certainly seem to have had a real dedication to their duty and their leader. But they were Yorkshiremen, and to this day most traditional Yorkshiremen see themselves as different to the rest of the English. So that may be the justification for their dedication. Phil |
Timmo uk | 16 Jun 2014 1:31 p.m. PST |
Newcastle's own regiment were raised in Northumbria and the Boarders. Most of his army was raised in the North East. |
Baccus 6mm | 16 Jun 2014 11:37 p.m. PST |
I would agree with Phillius that the Cornish have been generally over-hyped. Wargamers are always on the look for a 'super unit'
By no means were all of Newcastle's Foot involved in a stand so to give them a general label of stubbornness would be misguided. As to why a group of them stood their ground may best be put down to degree of resignation and Northern bloody-mindedness! |
Big Martin Back | 17 Jun 2014 4:47 a.m. PST |
During the first siege of Bristol, the Cornish, unable to get over the Portwall, had actually retreated miles. Not so ferocious then! Mind you, during the second siege of Bristol, the Parliament troops couldn't get over the Portwall either, as their ladders were allegedly too short. Shame it's not still there as you could've seen it from where I'm sat now. |
Manflesh | 17 Jun 2014 4:56 a.m. PST |
By the standards of much of the troops during the ECW, could not resignation and bloody-mindedness count as a material difference though for wargaming? I also don't like giving a particular regiment a permanent grading advantage just because a popular reputation. However I wouldn't be above giving a unit that did notably well (or badly) in the battle I'm recreating a bonus in the game. I like to rate a regiment with as much in mind of their opponents as my own impression of their abilities, and a nod towards creating a gameable scenario. Taking the Cornish as an example, one cannot deny their performance at Stratton, and this is the sort of thing that might have resulted in their existence as distinctly solid troops in wargaming to this day. Nonetheless the circumstances that led to this wouldn't have applied at every battle those men were attendant at- for example as Phillius says after Sir Beville Grenville died. Attrition and a lengthening distance from home might also be factors to consider. In my opinion though, when dealing with a period where there aren't a massive variety of unit types, it's nice to add a bit of colour by giving an advantage to a more well-known regiment. I wouldn't go so far as to always count a unit as excellent all the time. Everyone has an off day. Leigh |
sjwalker38 | 17 Jun 2014 5:55 a.m. PST |
I got the impression that both instances might have more to do with Victorian interpretation (the same that put all cavaliers in floppy hats) than historical reality. As the White Syke enclosure may not have existed until at least 50 years after the event, some purple prose seems highly likely. However, as the rules I'm drafting/adapting will have bonus and random event cards, it would be very easy to include a "bloody minded" or "stubborn" card with some additional benefits applicable to the unit when and if played, without turning them into a 'super unit'. Thanks for the inputs so far, more very welcome. |
Supercilius Maximus | 17 Jun 2014 9:49 a.m. PST |
The Whitecoats were mainly Geordies. Probably wore t-shirts and flip-flops in battle. |
Timbo W | 18 Jun 2014 2:30 p.m. PST |
I think the 'famous 5' Cornish Regiments were pretty good in early-mid 1643. Assaulting uphill outnumbered at Stratton and winning, then assaulting uphill at Lansdown and holding their ground against Hesilrigge's Lobsters were pretty exceptional performances for that time of the war. Admittedly there was a complete ballsup at Sourton Down when they panicked during an ambush in a thunderstorm and the storm of Bristol didn't go well, due to the height of the walls. After all this excitement they don't seem to stand out much from other units. Newcastle's whitecoats, well I suppose there were a number of small battles and skirmishes in Newcastle's campaign against the Fairfaxes where they aren't noted as doing anything particularly impressive, but sources are thin. Their pike did well at Adwalton under that wild and desperate (and peculiarly named) man, Posthumous Kirton and there are contemporary mentions of the whitecoats refusing quarter at Marston Moor (whichever bit!). Definitely a case fir 'Stubborn' I'd say. |
BombAlleySAM | 19 Jun 2014 2:34 a.m. PST |
Cornish not ferocious – try being married to a Cornish Maid from Penzance! |
Elenderil | 23 Jun 2014 11:48 p.m. PST |
If you read Newman's analysis of Marston Moor (sorry don't have the title to hand) he makes clear that the Whitecoats arrived late to the field having been looting the abandoned siege lines for shoes. They couldn't have deployed as shown in De Gommes plan and must have deployed somewhere to the rear. Depending on how late they were the cavalry action could have been well underway. If you assume that parts of the Parliamentary foot had already started giving ground and that Goring's horse are blown but regrouping while Cromwells wing are coming around the rear of the Royalist foot to deal with that threat then standing to delay Cromwell looks like a plan. It buys Goring time to recover and to reengage while the infantry fight resolves itself. The threat of formed fresh foot would prevent Cromwell falling on the rear of the Royalist foot. Shame it didn't work. |
|