"Parliment Cav tactics by 1644" Topic
6 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.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the English Civil War Message Board
Areas of InterestRenaissance
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Showcase ArticleThe next Teutonic Knights unit - Crossbowmen!
Featured Workbench ArticleDervel returns from Mexico with a new vision for making palm trees from scratch.
|
davbenbak | 25 Apr 2016 10:57 a.m. PST |
My question is by 1644 had the Parliamentarians changed their cavalry tactics from the "Dutch style" to something closer to the Royalist Cavaliers "Swedish style"? I'm specifically interested in the battle of Montgomery in Sept. 1644. |
Timmo uk | 25 Apr 2016 1:24 p.m. PST |
An interesting question that I look forward to seeing the various answers. My own thought was that both sides moved towards controlled charges reserving their pistols for the melee but cavalry that were poorly equipped lacking pistols or those that had bold aggressive leaders would still rely on the pace of their charge. It certainly seems that the practise of receiving charges stationery and relying on firepower to break up the in coming formation pretty much dies out. It's one aspect of the ECW that I don't think is always that well modelled by war-games rules. We tend to think of the Royalist horse being all conquering and many rules reflect that notion but the reality was that they were often defeated or a least held in check. |
Herkybird | 25 Apr 2016 4:09 p.m. PST |
I think the poor training and materiel quality of most early Parliamentarian horse made their opponents seem better. Later in the war, I feel a sort of Hybrid mix of the Swedish and Dutch systems developed in the Northern and Eastern associations armies, which meant the horse was willing to charge, but in a more controlled way than the Swedish system. Just my thoughts though…. |
smolders | 25 Apr 2016 6:02 p.m. PST |
My dear fellows: Beinge of no authoritee on this matter and havinge little references on the specific date you ask of I turned post hayste to the great tomes avaialebel on the interwebs: link on or arounde the paragraf the 9th and readinge on to paragraf the 11th. Not the moste informative but never the less a place to on which to starte. |
smolders | 25 Apr 2016 6:06 p.m. PST |
|
John Dixon | 26 Apr 2016 2:24 p.m. PST |
I agree with timmoUK that wargame rules tend to categorise the horse tactics. They tend stick with stereotypes and define parliamentarian cavalry as trotter firepower types and Royalists as galloper aggressor types. In reality both sides used a variety of tactics depending on terrain, force composition and commander. As an example the Northern horse under Fairfax were aggresive in most of their battles from the early period on. Similarly Rupert would use horse defensively with interlined musketeers, or aggressively as the force he commanded or faced dictated. Even parliamentarian horse receiving a charge at the halt with firepower would then countercharge to pushback the disordered enemy (Newbury 1 and Cheriton) |
|