"Cavalry 1450-1500 - esecially Coustillers and Scurrers" Topic

Hi

Not been interested in late medieval period for the best part of 25-30 years. The Perry's have both lightened my wallet and expanded my knowledge horizons, as is their wont. Curses!! :)

I am looking at doing a Yorkist force with Burgundian mercenary contingent, with the latter as much so I can justify using the gorgeous Mounted Men At Arms boxset. I am wanting to learn a bit more about cavalry usage on both sides of the channel in this period, specifically for those two forces mentioned.

From what I can gather the various types could be categorised as (from heaviset to lightest):
-Mounted Nobles/Men at Arms wearing full plate
(out of the various weapons in Perry MMAA boxset would any of them be most used by either Yorkists or Burgundian?)

-Coustillers – I gather that these are lighter than MMAA but still armoured- what else can you tell me about them?
What were they armed with? What was their role? Were they simply rear ranks supporting the better armoured MMAA?

-Scurrers – I know Perry do some metal models of Scurrers. I saw a preview of plastic box set out on Perry website.
I am guessing that these would have been used for scouting, flank watches, foraging, harassing etc.
Would these have been equipped with lances, spears and/or light missile weapons etc?

I know on English side of channel, the nobles typically did not often fight mounted- I have seen previous threads talking about use of heavy cavalry in specific battles. So for English, I am more more interested in what lighter cavalry types would have been fielded by Yorkists and what weapons they would be equipped with?

If anyone knows of any good links I can read up on, that would be much appreciated.

Thanks very much

James

I am looking at doing a Yorkist force with Burgundian mercenary contingent, with the latter as much so I can justify using the gorgeous Mounted Men At Arms boxset.

The Burgundian mercenaries in the Yorkist army were handgunners not mounted men-at-arms. Having said that though the Perry Mounted Men-at-Arms will do fine for any mounted MAA in either the Yorkist or Lancastrian armies.

Coustillers – I gather that these are lighter than MMAA but still armoured- what else can you tell me about them?
What were they armed with? What was their role? Were they simply rear ranks supporting the better armoured MMAA?

Coustillers were the pages of the men-at-arms in armies of the Hundred Years War. I am not aware of any reference to Coustillers in armies of the WotR.

-Scurrers – I know Perry do some metal models of Scurrers. I saw a preview of plastic box set out on Perry website.
I am guessing that these would have been used for scouting, flank watches, foraging, harassing etc.

Yes they would have been used for scouting, flank watches, foraging, harassing etc.

Would these have been equipped with lances, spears and/or light missile weapons etc?

Lances, probably not. Spears possibly. Not sure what you mean by "light missile weapons" – the only missile weapons that are known of in the WotR are bows and handguns. See what the Perries put in their light cavalry box!

So for English, I am more more interested in what lighter cavalry types would have been fielded by Yorkists and what weapons they would be equipped with?

The lighter cavalry types did not really have a battlefield role (see notes on Scurrers above).

There were a couple of battles in which small mounted contingents were placed in ambush, and of course cavalry would typically lead the pursuit (though many of those would be re-mounted MAA). Against armies comprised largely of armoured infantry and archers, non-missile medium-ish light cavalry is perhaps not enormously useful; though it could be very handy in the immediate prelude to battle (Ferrybridge, the race to Tewkesbury etc) or against non-historical opponents.

There really wasn't any dedicated cavalry in the English armies – if you had a horse and knew how to use it, you could be a cavalryman if necessary. Nor was there any fixed distinction between categories – a scurrer/forerider etc could easily be a MAA "dressed down" in brigandine & sallet.

Mounted Nobles/Men at Arms wearing full plate
(out of the various weapons in Perry MMAA boxset would any of them be most used by either Yorkists or Burgundian?)

Typical armament for a mounted western or central European man-at-arms (who was not necessarily a member of nobility) of the time, regardless of nationality, was a lance, sword, dagger and possibly one of the following: axe, mace or warhammer.

Lances would be used on the initial charge, and once they were broken the men-at-arms would switch onto sword/axe/mace/hammer. If conditions allowed, new lances might be obtained during the battle eg. from pages during a lull in action. Dagger was of little use when mounted, but might be useful as a weapon of last resort if unhorsed.

If fighting dismounted, MAA might resort to using some sort of heavy two handed weapon, such as poleaxe, backed up with a sword and dagger. These two-handed weapons would be too unwieldy to use while mounted.

Coustillers – I gather that these are lighter than MMAA but still armoured- what else can you tell me about them?
What were they armed with? What was their role? Were they simply rear ranks supporting the better armoured MMAA?

In Burgundian ordonnance forces, mounted coustilliers were to be armed with a light lance (spear), sword and dagger, and would be typically used to provide rear ranks for MAA. (Many wargame rules also allow them to be deployed in units of their own.)

They could also be deployed dismounted to provide protection to archers. In this role they could replace the light lance with a bladed polearm of some sort.

Speaking of archers, in Burdundian ordonnance forces these were expected to be also issued with horses, though these were primarily for transport, with the archers expected to dismount before action.

In Burgundian ordonnance forces,

I believe the OP was asking specifically about the WotR rather than European warfare in general.

As far as I can tell, he was asking both about Yorkists and Burgundians:

I am wanting to learn a bit more about cavalry usage on both sides of the channel in this period, specifically for those two forces mentioned.

That said, no Burgundian cavalry ever historically showed up in WotR, though a Burgundian intervention on the Yorkist side could make for an interesting historical what-if.

Thanks guys

Yes I was interested in both Yorkists and Burgundians. I have been looking online at various 28mm sites, including Painterman's amazing Burgundians. I certainly don't want to aim for anything like as large a force of Burgundians, just enough to have a merc contingent.

Basically I managed to pick up 3 of Perry Bos & Bills and 2 each of European infantary and MMAA boxsets. Based on nothing more than I thought they were lovely figures and managed to get for reasonable price including postage.

As I read up online subsequently I have realised that possibly bought too many of MMAA and efinitely need more Bows & Bills. I am simply trying to work out a way I can justify using the MMAA, probably by keeping them as lightly armored as possible.

In retrospect I would have probably been better off waiting for forthcoming Perry Light Cavalry boxset rather tha MMAA. But hey, since when do our impulse puchasing decisions look good with hindsight!!

:)

Thanks

James

Yes I was interested in both Yorkists and Burgundians.

Apologies for my being a bit confused. I read your OP that you were specifically asking about Burgundian mercenaries. I missed the bit about cavalry on both sides of the channel.

I certainly don't want to aim for anything like as large a force of Burgundians, just enough to have a merc contingent.

Then my next question would be Burgundian mercenaries fighting for who?

As regards use of cavalry in the WotR, although it is true that no Burgundian cavalry appeared historically, it should be borne in mind that it was common practice for WotR armies to ride on the march but fight on foot. Thus it is entirely possible for a Burgundian mercenary contingent to have horses for transport purposes, just that they didn't fight mounted.

As I read up online subsequently I have realised that possibly bought too many of MMAA and efinitely need more Bows & Bills. I am simply trying to work out a way I can justify using the MMAA, probably by keeping them as lightly armored as possible.

You can use the spare arms from the bow & bill kits to arm some of the bodies from the European Infantry kits as archers and billmen.

Also, if you are doing WotR, you should certainly get one of the new Foot Knight boxes ASAP, to provide you with sufficient variety of dismounted men-at-arms. Spare arms from this kit could be again mixed with spare bodies from the European Infantry kits, in order to make some well-armed retainers or lightly armoured men-at-arms.

With mounted men-at-arms, your options for making them look lightly armoured are mostly limited to skipping barding and selecting suitable heads. Though you can make a decent looking unit of scurrers or coustiliers by selecting all of the bodies with livery coats, and arming them with light lances (one per sprue) and swords, combined with a careful choice of mostly open helmets.

Hi Major B.

Not sure on how I can quote. So I'll simply say any Burgundian Mercs will be fighting for Yorkists. As I stated in first sentence of second paragraph "I am looking at doing a Yorkist force with Burgundian mercenary contingent".

As I said in my previous post I have realised that, having bought 2 boxes of MMAA, I have too many MMAA for realistic force. However I love the models and they may see use very occasionally when we do a big club multi-player with a "sod the realism, let's just put all the painted figures on the table, drink coffee and roll dice" vibe.

(As a further illustration of this, before MMAA box set was released, we saw LOTR Gondorian Knights and Riders of Rohan on table in a previous game- fun was had by all).

Hi Griefbringer.

Yeah- I had similar thoughts this afternoon. I had my first real proper look at sprues for all box sets (Bow & Bills, Euro Infantry and MMAA) close up under proper light. I see what you mean.

Ruleswise I want to use Hail Caesar, although a few of the guys at a local club are giving Impetus a try. My most likely opponent like myself came from WAB and so older figures were individually based, and only more recent stuff on bigger bases. So I'm having to be fairly flexible when I assemble my WOTR figures to be able to be able to face either. So will be going for either 40*40mm Renedra square plastic bases that they come with or 60*40mm laser-cut mdf bases.

Unit size wise I am happy with 12's for Bowmen. Not sure whether should go for 12's or bigger for Billmen.

Definitely agree with getting new Foot Knights box. I reckon 1 box will be more than enough to start with.
Hail Caesar has both Mounted & Dismounted MAA down as small units (with both Billmen & Bowmen as normal sized units).

For my first WOTR battle (or division in Hail Caesar terms), I was thinking 1 unit of Foot Knights, 2 units of Billmen and 4 units of Bowmen. Nice and simple. Probably save any mercs for 2nd or even 3rd battles.

What do you for your WOTR army for Unit size and figure basing?

Could you use them the other way round – Burgundians with an English contingent? Depends who you are fighting and whether you only want to do WoTR matchups.

So I'll simply say any Burgundian Mercs will be fighting for Yorkists.

OK. As I said before then, the only Burgundian mercenaries known to have been employed by the Yorkists are the ~500 handgunners at 2nd St Albans.

Unit size wise I am happy with 12's for Bowmen. Not sure whether should go for 12's or bigger for Billmen.

Keep it simple. Keep all your units the same size. Both HC and Impetus are unit based games.

So will be going for either 40*40mm Renedra square plastic bases that they come with or 60*40mm laser-cut mdf bases.

Actually, those Renedra bases that come with Perry WotR infantry kits are 40x45 mm, while the ones in the mounted men-at-arms set are 60x45 mm.

The 60X45mm bases are perfect for DBA3.0.

I'm building an army around Perry Bro mounted knights as we speak.

TomT

WI

you're not alone, I bought loads of Perry plastic C15 just cos I liked them, with no real period knowledge, then when all my wargaming group built WOTR armies I churlishly started on Burgundians. However I am learning slowly, and the painting is a real pleasure…

My advice on basing – buy some 40mm x 40mm MDF then put three figures on each. It creates a nicely non-ranked effect, and you can use three stands for an Impetus Unit (or six for depth) or group them up for Bloody Barons etc.

Whether I paint any Swiss is questionable so my finished Burgundians will just have to fight 'What if?' battles against my mates' English forces, but hell, its only a game.

The Burgundian army used quite large English contingents – the siege force before Neuss had some 3000, and an even higher number of Italians.
The Burgundians fought against French, Flemish and German forces beside the Swiss, so many matchups are possible.

The Burgundian army used quite large English contingents – the siege force before Neuss had some 3000

However, these were directly under Burgundian pay and command, rather than being an allied contingent, and would have most likely been wearing either St. Andrews Cross on their clothes or maybe even Ordonnance livery coat.

As for mounted men-at-arms, another way to use spare models would be on command stands – either as mounted commanders or couriers. Maybe even a page holding reins of a horse.

The English contingent certainly fought seperate from the other contingents of the Burgundian army, and was noted, or rather praised by Wierstraet, the chronicler of Neuss, as being distinctively warlike, bold and professional, before all other contingents of Charles army.

Afaik they fought in English companies under usually English command, and the English companies formed a cohesive contingent – with English reinforcements going to this contingent. They were placed directly next to Charles core Burgundian force, between Obertor and to the Rhine islands, protecting his right. If there was any Burgundian command, it was probably above the company level, with selected knights commanding sub-contingents of the force, or specific areas.

The ordonnances make no provisions for mercenary contingents, so it is probable – imho even likely – that they were not uniformed. I am almost sure that the Italians wore no such uniforms, and they certainly fought under their own commanders. Contingents from other Allied territories wore their own livery, not the ordonnance outfit – it is recorded that one contingent was ridiculed for their black/white birdlike appearance by the Neussers.

The few contemporary depictions are, alas, inconclusive regarding livery and marks.

By sheer coincidence I got hold of Vaughans biography of Charles the Bold yesterday, opened a page by random and was in the part where the composition of his army is handled.

He states that AFTER Neuss around 10 companies of 100 English mounted archers became part of his ordonnance army – perhaps in recognition of their service – and would stay with him until the bitter end (unlike many other units).
I assume that as part of the ordonnance, their livery was uniform.

Speaking of post-Neuss, don't forget the English invasion of France in summer 1475. This was planned to be carried out in cooperation with Burgundians and Bretons. However, things did not quite work out as planned, and the English quite soon ended up making a peace treaty with the king of France.

However, this provides a pretty reasonable historical what-if scenario (had things gone a bit differently) for a joint Anglo-Burgundian army taking on royal French forces. The English army probably would have been wearing the English livery of red cross on white coat.

As for the English archers in Burgundian service, according to the Freezywater Publications book about Burgundian ordonnances, the English archers (and a number of men-at-arms) were formed into 21st company in 1475, commanded by Sir John Middleton.

Hi Khaki08.

I definitely want some Burgundians (I wanted some the moment I saw the European Infantry box set) but I want them to be in minority, a supporting detachment to main English force.

Some people that are more informed about this period may quibble about Burgundian mercs being employed in WOTR. I don't care and neither would my friends. yes it may not be 100% historically accurate but enough that I can live with. Admittedly would probably use more Burgundians if we were doing some sort of what-if scenario with war in France similar to what you suggested.

Re basing, I had n't realised that Renedra bases in Perry box sets were 40mm*45mm. I am sure that I had got some direct from Renedra before for other projects that were 40mm square- I had simply assumed that they were the same.

If playing Hail Caesar we will probably settle on normal units being 120mm wide, which would be same width as those based by other club members for Impetus. So I simply need 3 bases 40mm wide. Am not too fussed about depth. A 5mm difference in depth will not matter too much

So on these 3 bases per unit, I am probably going for 4 Foot Knights (i.e. units of 12), 3 Billmen / 3 Bowmen (i.e. units of 9), and 2 skirmishers i.e. Handgunners (i.e. units of 6). So similar to what you were doing.

Hi Puster/Griefbringer: thanks for the additional info on Burgundians. I do want to read up more on the armies on Charles the Bold- saw lovely blog by Painterman which although well beyond my abilities is very inspirational.

I am trying to avoid buying too many figures up front, which is my usual flaw when starting new army. Other than buying a second unit of MMAA I think I have avoided that this time. For example I have only bought one box of the amzing Foot Knights, as much to mix in with Billmen to give more variety but also to have couple of units of dismounted MAA.

Thus I want to focus initially on some Yorkist Retinues before getting into Burgundians. But I can definitely see me adding some Bowmen and Billmen to the Burgundian contingent in future., whether they are English Allies or mercenaries I am not bothered about at this moment. I'll have a clearer idea once have done more reading in future.

@ All:
Thanks for the input. Went slightly beyond my intended focus on Yorkist and Burgundian cavalry.

I think after further reading on force compositions, and knowing that Perrys have some light cavalry in progress, that will leave the lovely MMAA to one side for the moment and force myself to concentrate on the bulk of Bowmen (and also Billmen) that I will need for this era.

I don't care and neither would my friends. yes it may not be 100% historically accurate but enough that I can live with.

A perfectly valid view. Have fun!

Thanks MajorB

A lot of it is going to depend what sort of gaming you are used to. My friends and I initially played mainly GW games including W40k, WFB and various Specialist Games. Got into historicals with publication of Warhammer Ancient Battles and the discovery of the delights that Wargames Foundry had to offer.

When WAB folded we tried various alternatives. I'm personally not taken by Impetus. However I found I enjoyed Hail Caesar and Black Powder. With Warlord Games being founded by ex-GW employees I guess they know how to sell to ex-GW players.

I have an enthusiasm for various Ancients periods including Ancient Greeks/Macedonians, Romans vs Celts,, War of the Roses (which I studied as specialist subject at 6th form well over 2 decades ago), with being an expert on any of them.

Thus for me Hail Caesar fits perfectly as a ruleset with it's level of abstraction vs detail, and am not compelled to stick with 100% historical accuracy. However I do like to learn more which is why it is nice to come on here at TMP to ask questions of gamers that probably know more about the subject in question.

Thus specfically for this post I was interested in the differences between English and Burgundians between various armour, arms and other equipement, and thus if I understand a particular piece in Perry boxsets are more prevalent in Burgundian army, then I will use it only sparingly in English troops (for variety) and save more to be used in Burgundian contingent.

Have appreciated and hopefully learned from advice received.

Cheers

James

Some people that are more informed about this period may quibble about Burgundian mercs being employed in WOTR. I don't care and neither would my friends. yes it may not be 100% historically accurate but enough that I can live with.

As far as what-if scenarios go, heavier Burgundian involvement in WotR is not that far-stretched scenario. Burgundy was close by, and had some pretty close relations with English.

Thus specfically for this post I was interested in the differences between English and Burgundians between various armour, arms and other equipement, and thus if I understand a particular piece in Perry boxsets are more prevalent in Burgundian army, then I will use it only sparingly in English troops (for variety) and save more to be used in Burgundian contingent.

Presuming that your Burgundians are supposed to be from Charles the Bold's ordonnance forces, there were certain guidelines given in the ordonnances as to how the different troop types were supposed to be equipped. These are available in various publications (eg. the old but decent Osprey book on medieval Burgundian armies).

For example, Burgundian men-at-arms were expected to wear feathered plumes in their helmets (except for some of the officers who were instead expected to wear pennants on theirs), so you might want to give most of your Burgundian men-at-arms feathered helmets, while making those a rare sight amongst your Englishmen.

Also, you might want to make your English look slightly old-fashioned in comparison with the Burgundians, by giving them (on average) slightly older looking equipment, to represent the style and wealth of the Burgundians, and the slight delay in continental fashions spreading to England.

Thanks Griefbringer- that helps. Cheers

As for composition, the FOG and Impetus books on the era (Storm of Arrows, Impetus Extra 3) give you a nice table with oobs to start from, even when you do not like the rules.

For me 6*3 cm is the standard basesize to go, as I use it with FOG (or DBA) and in quadruples as Impetus bases – and for WGs system it does not matter anyway. Ultimately anything goes that looks good and works.

Griefbringer, the English invasion of 1475 is indeed an interesting "what if" – Charles really wrecked his well laid and ambitious plans for his own kingdom before the walls of Neuss.

The "what ifs" of that campaign and its possible outcomes are a real mindtwister – with all options for us wargamers to exploit: Burgund, France, England, the Empire, Swiss and Italians (as mercenaries) can be motivated in almost all constellations within a measly decade.

The "what ifs" of that campaign and its possible outcomes are a real mindtwister – with all options for us wargamers to exploit: Burgund, France, England, the Empire, Swiss and Italians (as mercenaries) can be motivated in almost all constellations within a measly decade.

Don't forget the Bretons, who were also planning to side with English and Burgundians against the king of France in 1475.

Then there are also the inhabitants of Low Countries, who had a practice of rebelling regularly against pretty much anybody who tried to rule them. Charles the Bold had to deal with a few of those, too.

Good point with the Bretons. I just realize that I have no idea wether (and if, how) their armies would differ from those of France or England.

It is also a strange feat of history that two of the largest duchies of their era would be inherited to a women within near a decade, with Burgund and Britanny – and both would be betrothed to Maximilian. In both cases France went to war over it, without success in the former and with success in the later case.

Good point with the Bretons. I just realize that I have no idea wether (and if, how) their armies would differ from those of France or England.

At least they had distinctive livery coat, with black cross on white background. I am going to try painting some of those at some point to see how it looks on late 15th century models – hopefully pretty impressive!

Speaking of Bretons, in 1450's they also took part in the reconquest of the English holdings in France.

If you know of a good book on the Breton army, I am all ears.

We should motivate Druzhina to put up a page for them. :-)

I would also like to get more material on late medieval Bretons.

There is an interesting 15th century Breton CoE army list on GEG website for them, written by somebody who seems to know quite a bit about the subject, but it does not list any sources:

link

Just the list of different historical allies given is quite astonishing.

Hi Puster- I did buy Field of Glory and the first half dozen supplements in a job lot, which nicely covered the main periods likely to look at (including Repblican and Imperial Romans vs usual enemies, Greeks + Persians + Macedonians, Crusades, Ottoman + Byzantines, plus Storm of Arrows).

Found Field of Glory nice and glossy, good introduction yo some variant armies that I knew nothing about. But did n't find it easy to grasp. I think one other person from club tried FoG and did n't like it either. I did keep it though for ideas on army composition as you described.

I tried Impetus and did n't particularly take to it. But others in club do. So all WOTR figures in club will either be singly based 20mm WAB style or 120mm Impetus base. So by using 40mm wide bases with 3 sch bases to a Hail Caesar unit I will easily be able to play either.

That 1475 invasion what-if scenarios does sound exactly the sort of games that I and club members would love to play. Everyone can use their historically accurate figures without worrying exactly which Lords fought in which battle.

Don't forget that for the 1475 invasion, you will also need to put together some French ordonnance forces to play the opposition – maybe aided by various mercenaries.

Some?
:-)