"Lancastrian Archers at First St Albans" Topic
4 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 don't make fun of others' membernames.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Medieval Discussion Message Board
Areas of InterestMedieval
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Workbench Article Dervel  returns from Mexico with a new vision for making palm trees from scratch.
Featured Profile Article Wargame groundcloths as seen at Bayou Wars.
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
| mdavis41 | 26 Oct 2014 9:06 a.m. PST |
I have just played my first game of GMT's Blood and Roses. the First St Albans scenario. The designer, Richard Berg, made the interesting choice to give the Yorkists 1 unit of archers for each battle. however the Lancastrians got none. Is there any evidence for this? I have read that the Yorkists had an advantage here, partly due to Sir Robert Ogle's 600 strong Border archers fighting for Salisbury (or perhaps Warwick ). However, given the normal conventions of Poleaxed or Coat of Steel, i would have suspected that the Lancastrians would have had some archers, if not several bands of retainer's worth given the large number of Noble Lords present. They typically accompanied the Riding Retinue of their Lord and generally predominated in terms of their numbers versus men at arms. Does anyone have an insight on this issues as it pertains to St Albans specifically? |
| Green Tiger | 26 Oct 2014 9:20 a.m. PST |
I think the chances of any army in the wars of the roses having no longbows is pretty much nil… |
| AcrylicNick | 26 Oct 2014 9:39 a.m. PST |
There are a number of people on the Lead Adventure Forum who are very knowledgeable about the armies of the Wars of the Roses. It might therefore be a good idea to ask that question in the Medieval section of LAF link. |
| MajorB | 26 Oct 2014 9:46 a.m. PST |
The Lancastrian Army at First St Albans was, in a sense, not really an army as such. It was actually the royal household on progress to the Council to be held at Leicester (that in fact never took place). The Lancastrians were not expecting to fight – hence the protracted negotiations between 7am and 10am. The Yorkists forced their hand at St Albans. The Yorkist army OTOH was indeed expecting to fight… Consequently the Lancastrians had very few archers present compared to the Yorkists. Further details can be found in "The Battles of St Albans" (Burley, Elliott & Watson, Pen & Sword, 2007) link |
|
