"Thinking about dipping my toe in HYW" Topic

So just glancing over wiki, i see there is quite alot of battles even after 1415.

I'm not sure I'm thst intrested in a English army (not a fan of archers ) so i was thinking about doing a burgundy army for that side.

Would burgundy have a more french type army, more mounted troops?

What about the other side, should i go for french. Or Scottish? Just what would a Scottish HYW army look like?

If you like mounted knights, French is definitely the way to go. My impression of Burgundy is that they were largely a French army, but could have English Mercenaries. Also speaking of the English, don't forget that Gascony was a major territorial holding for much of the HYW, and could have a very French character. The border region between Gascony and the rest of France would be a good setting for small scale or skirmish gaming too!

Damon.

I don't need a massive amount of mounted nights/MMAA

But more then close to zero the English had.

All the English MAA were mounted and occasionally fought mounted. They dismounted to work closely with the archers (the main strength of the army). They even sometimes remounted during the battle to deliver a final battle winning charge.

TomT

IIRC at Poitiers the English re-mounted to pursue the broken French army, so it certainly did happen.

Damon.

Oh fun, using mounted figures to pursue routed enemies.

A Scottish army on the continent would be mostly MAA and archers, like an English one, but with more of a parity between the two….

If you go down the skirmish route, you can use pretty much any weapons and mounted/foot combo you want. Less useful if you're building big armies.

@Gunfreak " not a fan of archers"? How do you survive without knowing what's happening in Ambridge?

But more then close to zero the English had.

As said above, the English men-at-arms could and did fight mounted.

At the battle of Bauge (1421) the initial English presence on the battlefield was 1500 mounted men-at-arms. They crossed a bridge after a brief struggle and then launched an unphill cavalry charge against the main body of the opposing Franco-Scottish army. This did not work out well, and by the time the follow-up force of archers showed up on the battlefield the English men-at-arms had been decisively defeated. For some reason, this battle is not very popular amongst miniature wargamers…

Regarding English, besides the troops from the foggy isles, they could also field forces from their French possessions, like Normandy and Gascony – even the Paris militia served for a while under their English overlords.

As for the Burgundians, they could have French-style men-at-arms and crossbowmen from their French possessions, but they might also be able to field archers from Picardy, infantry from Low Countries and English allies/mercenaries. Not to mention that they had a nice collection of artillery at hand if needed.

Since hail caesar don't have an army lust for hyw yet.

Can you nice strangers give me some hints.

Take the french.

1. Should mounted sergeants and knighrs/MMAA be mixed in the same unit. Or diffrent units.
2. If my french force has 4 cav units, how many infantry units.
3, what would the ratio of infantry be. MAA/infantry/crossbow

Iirc, at Bouvines the French sergeants fought as separated units. That's a bit earlier than HYW, of course.

The "infantry" units would mostly be dismounted MAA. Actual infantry would be units of mercenaries, which would most likely be Spanish "Bidets" (Bidowers) with javelins, spear and targ, or crossbowmen like Genoese. Other infantry would be town militia, mostly crossbow. Infantry in French HYW armies are seldom given any prominent role, and often don't get into combat at all. Agincourt is a fine example of this.

I think that a ratio range would be something like:

MAA (mounted and dismounted) up to 100%
Infantry up to 50%
Mercenaries up to 30%

That is the "gamey" version. History of course offers exceptions to ANY army list limitations imposed….

Thanks.

What exactly use would these figures have?

link

None that I know of, for Agincourt. That is an interesting distinction in the catalogue. Those guys look like poor MAA or well to do town militia to me. Most of the French army at Agincourt would have had cap-a-pie plate or at least platemail. On the English side those would be the mythical "billmen". The English MAA would have been just as well-armed as their French opponents. "Billmen" would be the MAAs' armed servants, pressed into combat at need. But I am thinking that they would not be that well armed and they would be assigned to guard the baggage park/train.

Edit to add: those Perry guys could be English yeomen of the best sort advancing with their favorite melee weapons once they run out of arrows. Only the guy second from the left would not use a wide brimmed "pot" helmet while shooting a bow. We don't actually know what portion of the English yeomanry resorted to melee weapons ("bills") instead of bows and arrows. That was a trend occurring increasingly throughout the 15th century, even to the stage of "archer" being a title and not a literal shooter….

I've loosed a longbow on many occassions while wearing a brimmed helm. Not sure where this legend of no brimmed helms for archers came from.

French at Poitiers were not routed when hit by English mounted charge. Anduel its leader was severly injured in the fight.

Not likely all French MAA at Agincourt were in full plate. Too expensive for all but the most wealthy (whose statutes, coffins and portraits dominate the "historical record" but not necessarily the battlefield).

As it became harder to find top grade archers, billmen were sometimes recruited instead (probably cheaper). In latter years with the English on the defensive possiblity for loot and ransom declined leading to recruiting problems. May also have been recruited from "false french" in occupied areas.

When pushed to the brink (as at Poitiers) English could fight mounted or dismounted at need. Its one of the few major screw ups in the DBA 3.0 lists that they are forced to fight dismounted.

TomT

I have those figures too, and often use them as urban militia or mercs. They could also be castle garrison out on a sally for skirmish games. BTW, the figure 2nd from the right I outfitted with the plancon, with the idea of a small Flemish urban militia force… :)

Damon.

So far I'm thinking.

2 units of MMAA
2 units of mounted sergeants
2 crossbows
2 Scottish pikes
3 foot MAA

For the French

What exactly use would these figures have?

Rear rankers in the Valois foot.

Valois are the French french?

Yes, the "rebels" who refused to accept Edward III Plantagenet as their king.

If those Perry's are good rear rankers for "Valois" they work as English rear rankers too….

Not sure where this legend of no brimmed helms for archers came from.

There are brimmed helmets and then there are WIDE brimmed helmets. A "demi" brim would be no trouble for an archer. But a wide brim would not be conducive to pulling to the ear.

That Perry fig has a WIDE brim, which is why I pointed it out. Archers in the period artwork tend to have bascinet and other close-fitting helmets. The brimmed pot helmet is relatively uncommon with archers (but quite opposite for crossbowmen). If you shoot with one you must be adjusting your draw to allow for it….

Thanks people? Fir infantry should i use 2 or 3 ranks?

36 figures in 3 ranks looks very good! But alot of figures to paint.

If you are going for the "in depth" look, 25-28mm is going to cost you a LOT in treasure, energy and time.

You could go with rules that are more ground scale oriented rather than "look" or appearance oriented in that scale. That way a single miniature on say a 20mm x 20mm base is representative of a 64 men company of infantry eight ranks by eight files. On the table it lines up a single miniature deep, which is annoying to those who must have DEEP formations no matter what. But you can't have everything unless you pay the price.

Usually armies are at least two figures/bases deep, i.e. "16 ranks". Or at least elements of most armies are that deep, or even deeper: e.g. Swiss routinely formed up to fifty ranks deep, or five ranks of miniatures/bases, which does look pretty cool. Also English longbow get to be pretty deep at times up to 16 ranks, or two miniatures/bases. But their MAA are usually thinned out, e.g. at Agincourt where they are specifically described as only four ranks deep. On the table this looks rather weird, with the battles of MAA spread out in "open order", which is stipulated (a "declared" formation) to be a "thin line" and not open order: so that each miniature/base of 64 men is covering twice the frontage of a full "close order" formation eight ranks deep, at half the depth of four ranks….

Well two ranks are minimum for me.

My pikes will be 4 ranks (which is 16 or more ranks in HC)

Not sure about archers, and infantry.

Crossbows are easy at 1 or 2 ranks (1 rank shields 1 rank crossbowmen)

Scottish pikes in France could be quite iffy, if you are going for historical accuracy…

The pikes would be burgundy troops from flanders.

If those Perry's are good rear rankers for "Valois" they work as English rear rankers too….

Not for indentured troops as their harness would not have passed muster, I believe.

Scottish pikes in France can be very sound indeed so long as you don't leave them vulnerable to archery. OTH in the early HYW (and immediately pre-HYW) Scottish knights were particularly tasty…there's just not a whole lot of them.

@janner: So are we saying that English MAA "units" were of a higher quality, armor-wise, than French? Or are the English "at home" less quality, armor-wise, than the expeditionary forces? I accept the latter point of view. So those Perry figures are good for representing local levy or even "feudal" elements, etc. And of course town militia….

Hi GWA,

As you rightly suspect, it depends on the context. For the 1415 campaign, the Plantagenet army consisted of indentured contingents that were periodically inspected and those MAA whose armour, mount etc. didn't make the grade, didn't fulfill the terms of the contract. Members of Valois army, in comparison, were not subject to the same process. The well heeled noble members of both forces would have been as well provided, but I'd argue that the Valois force also included less well armoured foot. At home, I agree that an English army would also include similar troops.