"What rules do you play for the WOTR ..?" Topic

Gush rules – 50 troop minimum sub-unit

From same TMP link by Daniel S:

The regulations for the Imperial troops laid down in 1570 envsioned the following organisation
Each 400 man "fähnlein" of Landsknechts were to have 100 "fully harnessed" pikemen armed with pistols, 50 of whom were to be doppelsöldner, 50 men with two-handed swords or other good polearms such as halberds also armed with pistols ("Good and experienced men to guard the standard") 50 unarmoured pikemen and 200 shot with firearm, good 'rapiers' and helmets. The only doppelsöldner were the 50 picked pikemen.

This maybe where the 50 number comes from. At 1:20 this is 2.5 figures – awkward.

So how do we get our hand on BB&B?

@ All :

But what would it change at the George Gush's Renaissance Rules that units have less than 5 figures or more than 50 ? Nothing at all …

@Stoppage: Those numbers are after the Wars of the Roses and the fall of Charles the Bold. As such they are misleading if thinking about the late 15th century. As mentioned above, get Mike Ingram's new book "Richard III and the Battle of Bosworth" from Helion for a good, thorough, analysis of how armies were raised, organised and deployed during the Wars of the Roses.

@ Trebian :

LOL.Personally I'm going to buy the Mike Ingram's new book "Richard III and the Battle of Bosworth" from Helion in december but I would like to know what he has extraodinary? Mike Ingram is a friend of yours?

@ All:

What rules do you play for the WOTR ..?

@Trebian

As pointed out – the Trewer Rath was later than WOTR (1487 – 35 years – 1522).

I just popped it in to promote discussion and illustrate how they intermixed different infantry weaponry in a formation (albeit later and in different theatre, etc, etc) [Also to give some air again to that particular post]

In later Tudor times it seems that English armies deployed in blocks of weapons – Gush's book has some illustrations.

PS Thx 4 tip on book – ordered 4 xmas :)

@Paskal: What Mike has that is different is that he has looked at the WotR in a European context, and identified the influences on English warfare from the Burgundians and the French. The tendency in Anglophile writers is to focus on the English art of war from the end of the 100 Years War, particularly Agincourt. That isn't always helpful, as there are specific issues with what is happening at Agincourt that isn't applicable to Wars of the Roses battles. Mike's further analysis of why and how Bosworth was fought and the role of the French is breaking new ground. And, yes, Mike is a colleague through the Northamptonshire Battlefields Society.

AStoppage: I know you pointed that out. What I'm saying is that you can't read that back to being relevant in the late 15th century. When I was working on Edgcote I had a number of issues working out army sizes and deployment areas. One discussion I had with someone else about the battle was misleading in that he was using non-contemporary evidence on deployment to fill gaps in what we appear not to have for the WotR. I would agree that as the post Charles the Bold military revolution kicks in things change. What is difficult is knowing what is left of 15th century English organisation and tactics by the mid Tudor period. Probably not much, after Henry Tudor breaks the retinue system.

@Deucey

I am trying to get BB&B to the printers next week.
It is a local company and they should be able to turn them around quite quickly.

Barry

I've used Lion Rampant, and considering Day of Battle and Impetus 2.

Also, have recently read Hugh Bicheno's two volume series on the Wars of the Roses, Battle Royal and Blood Royal. These provide a very interesting and detailed read regarding the politics of the era, including the various interactions with the French. It also seems to include information from the most recent studies that have been done on some of the battles like Towton and Bosworth. However, the books appear to be more of a big picture view of the wars, and it is short on the details of individual battles. Worth reading to have have the larger perspective though.

Yes, GamesPoet … I also enjoyed Hugh B's two books, which have some good and original thinking and, as you say, are pretty much up with the latest scholarship.

That said, the two books mentioned earlier in the thread, on Bosworth and Edgcote have been published subsequently, so the author didn't have those insights (such as e.g. the correct date of the battle of Edgcote*).

Phil
* that is July 24th, of course (not 26th as you will find plastered all over the internet )

@ Trebian:

And in the Mike Ingram's new book on Bosworth what's new in Battle order? Its very important.

@Paskal: His orbat for the battle is more complete than most, and gives proper weight to the French contingent. As yesthatphil said above, anything prior to the Glenn Foard survey and Mike's book is now obsolete,- that includes the Osprey and anything you find on the internet, especially Wikipedia.

@ Trebian:
That's good because I have no ospreys on these wars and wikipedia has a too bad reputation for me to rely on it.

@ Trebian: :

You write "anything to the Glenn Foard survey and Mike's book is now obsolete", so according to you the little booklets Freezywater publications also are worth nothing?

@Paskal: In respect of Bosworth, everything prior to Foard & Ingram is obsolete.

The Freezywaters are good for heraldry, and liveries however. Need to be careful on the battle descriptions. The other two battles I know well, – Northampton & Edgcote – have had radical reinterpretations in the last 5 years,and anything prior to the publications by Northamptonshire Battlefields Society are likewise obsolete for those two. Can't speak for the other battles, but the stuff published by Watson and Elliott on St Albans is the most up to date. Towton is open to question and we are waiting for the publication of new work there.

@ Trebian :

Yes, the history of all wars are fables told by their winners, so we must rewrite everything.

Yes, the history of all wars are fables told by their winners, so we must rewrite everything.

No, what Trebian is referring to is new evidence that forces the re-interpretation.

@MajorB: Yes. Correct. The current re-writing is coming about due to better battlefield archaeology, and a revisiting of sources by people who think battlefield history is important and has previously been overlooked. In my own case I was told we have few sources for Edgcote (the Battlefield Trust website says so). That simply isn't true, hence the publication of the book to mark the 550th anniversary.

I say that in the end everything is speculation …

@ Trebian:

On Nov. 30, 2019 at 2:23 pm you wrote "The Freezywaters are good for heraldry, and liveries however." read this then:

TMP link

I say that in the end everything is speculation …

This reminds me of Isaac Asimov's Relativity of Wrong essay:
"John, when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."

link

Back to our discussion.

Yes, historians speculate on what happened hundreds of years ago, based on the best research and understanding of the time period that the current evidence allows. This, like all science, is constantly changing.

On the other hand, I could speculate that Space Marines using Lascannons were present at Bosworth.

Both are speculations and both may be wrong. But to believe both speculations are equally valid, simply because they both are speculation, is even more wrong. So the claim, " All is speculation" is meaningless in gaining any understanding. And probably using "interpretation" instead of "speculation" is a more accurate term.

Warspite, you have telling everyone since July that your rules are about to be published, have you gat a date yet and a price?
Blood Barons 2 seems to be ready for release very soon.

@Stewart46A

Soon. I have M.E. (chronic fatigue syndrome) and other issues. I wanted to get them into the printers before the warm summer weather as my health usually deteriorates but that was not possible.
Currently I am re-testing and have changed about 200 words and several cross-refs in just the last two weeks. As a former professional proof-reader and sub-editor I want to be sure they are dead right before I jump off the bridge and print.

So… soon! :)

B

@Trebian:
I would also point out that Mortimer's Cross has been re-evaluated as well. The Victorian/Edwardian interpretation of Edward fighting with his back to the river always struck me as odd.

If the battle is re-orientated it makes a lot more sense, plus he is then defending the route north into Yorkist heartland (Ludlow and Wigmore Castle) which had been looted only a couple of years previously.

link

B

@Bowman :

Yes but we understood each other well, but since it seems that in history only the first and second sources count, but as they are the fact of human beings, I tend not to believe them either, because for ideological reasons for example (or for other reasons) many lies can be written, so in my opinion the truth is always elsewhere, so you must not be rigid and believe automatically what you read '-)

Now for the initial question of this topic:

"What rules do you play for the WOTR ..?" for me the answer is "The George Gush's Renaissance Rules",
it's a safe bet!

However, you must avoid the army lists of the army list booklet to be used with this rule.

I disagree.

Your Dec 1 entry suggests that since only the winners write history, they therefore have some ideological or political axe to grind. And, of course, there is always some degree of truth in that.

However, in this case, there is also the fact that many here have shown that new archeological evidence has made it necessary to reevaluate previously understood concepts. Therefore, some older sources are now deemed inaccurate.

To which your response is, well "…… in the end everything is speculation …" And that is a great example of Asimov's Relativity of Wrong.

For me, I would use Hail Caesar, as I own the rules and enjoy them. I'll echo Phil and state that I'm not looking for a realistic simulation. I'm looking for a plausible game, that yields plausible results when using plausible tactics, (given the implausible skill of my generalship, of course).

If Gush's rules are what you like, then by all means enjoy them.

@ Bowman:

Yes I like the "Gush" and yes I think that sooner or later all the theories prove to be false over time …

Anyway I do not imagine that we can reconstruct a real fight with a rule of wargame, all this is for fun.

Oh dear !: Damn! Damn ! Damn it! How to do ? The WOTR "specialist" of this forum haven't yet told us which rule to use: '(