"Regimental organisation" Topic
9 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 use bad language on the forums.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the English Civil War Message Board
Areas of InterestRenaissance
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Recent Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase ArticleThe Editor tries out a boardgame - yes, a boardgame - from battle-market magazine.
Featured Workbench ArticleAdam loves Scorched Brown...
Featured Profile ArticleIf you were a kid in the 1960s who loved history and toy soldiers, you probably had a WOW figure!
Featured Book Review
|
Edwulf | 14 Dec 2015 11:24 p.m. PST |
A foot regiment had pikes and muskets but we're they organised into companies and how many companies of each? 1 big company of pikes and 2 companies of muskets? A cavalry regiment had squadrons or companies or both? Just thinking of dabbling and wanted to suss out some details before I decide on figures and rules… Side question… could Royalists and Parliamentarians be used for any continental campaigns … 1650s type stuff. |
MajorB | 15 Dec 2015 2:17 a.m. PST |
A foot regiment had pikes and muskets but we're they organised into companies and how many companies of each? 1 big company of pikes and 2 companies of muskets? A foot regiment was divided into companies of ~100 men A cavalry regiment had squadrons or companies or both? Neither. A regiment of horse (n.b. not referred to as "cavalry" in the ECW) was divided into troops. ecwsa.org/armies.html bcw-project.org/military/units Side question… could Royalists and Parliamentarians be used for any continental campaigns … 1650s type stuff. By the 1650s you are talking about the New Model Army. |
Cerdic | 15 Dec 2015 3:59 a.m. PST |
I believe a regiment of foot was usually 10 companies. Each company contained pike and shot. How they were formed on the battlefield is another question…. |
Edwulf | 15 Dec 2015 4:07 a.m. PST |
Right. So the companies were more administrative than tactical? While a rgt is equivalent to a battalion? I guess 400-1000 men in both? Horse regiments were usually 200-300 strong or is that too small? It's a tempting period… I like the look of the floppy hats and new model army lobster pot helmets. Not to keen on pikes but if I go for a small enough scale… |
Timbo W | 15 Dec 2015 4:31 a.m. PST |
Hi Edwulf, 10 companies of 100 was the theoretical standard, each company contained both pike and musket. However regiments were very very rarely anywhere near full strength, so 400-800 was fairly good going, many regiments fell to 150-400. On the battlefield it seems that regiments were usually used as the tactical units, if they were a reasonable size approx 400 to 800. Smaller regiments were brigaded together to form battalions, large regiments of 1000 or more could be split into 2 battalions. Horse was 6 troops of 60-80 again theoretically, but some armies eg eastern assoc, new model, managed to keep horse regiments mostly near full strength, others eg royalists didnt. So horse could be in regiments of 100 to 500. In battle they seem to have been used in squadrons of about 200. Occasionally there were extra large regiments both of horse and foot, eg cromwells 14 troops or newcastles double regiment of foot. These belonged to the generals with most prestige and cash in the main. |
sjwalker38 | 15 Dec 2015 4:36 a.m. PST |
Yes, the companies were largely administrative, composed of both pike and shot in varying proportions, and officially numbering between 200 (Colonel's Company) to 80 men (Captains) each with its own distinctive flag. The ideal was 2 muskets for every pike, but early Royalist armies were often short of firearms and were closer to 1:1 at the outset. On the battlefield the pikes (and colours) were clumped together in the centre of the regiment with sleeves of shot on either side. Regiments that were seriously understrength were often combined into ad-hoc units of 4-500 men referred to as a 'battalia'. Most of the battles were small-scale affairs that can be readily represented in 28mm though I use the lovely Peter Pig 15's – which make the pike manageable and no-one can complain if you use the figures for slightly earlier (TYW) or later (1650's+) campaigns. Several recent and different rule sets have been released for the period – just avoid the sets that allow you to manoeuvre the pike and shot elements of a unit separately, unless they've started the battle that way, as a forlorn hope or the rare example of the Cornish pike blocks at Lansdowne. |
Guillaume deGuy | 15 Dec 2015 9:31 a.m. PST |
Hope you'll start dabbling – this is a fascinating period. As to 1650's checkout the Battle of the Dunes link If you are not already aware of it. I use 10mm so I feel like I can use early 1640s figures with no problem. As Major B says it is New Model at that stage and if you use a giant scale ( like 25mm :-) ) there are subtle and evolving differences in dress and equipment that are noticeable. I would echo sjwalker38 on rules that allow pikes and muskets to be maneuvered as separate units – I have gotten weird and baffling results plus to me it losses the spirt of the times (in set-piece battles anyway). A ratio of one pike figure to two musketeers is a good starting point for building armies. |
Elenderil | 16 Dec 2015 10:34 a.m. PST |
Second the suggestion for the Osprey on Pike and Shot tactics. Keith Roberts covers these issues really well. If you want additional material try his Cromwell's War Machine. It shares some of the same material as the Osprey but provides details on training and a history of the development of the tactical styles. |
|