"Numbers at Ferrybridge?" Topic

Any guesses on each side? I guess the combined casualties amounted to over 3k.

Thanks for suggestions. I'm thinking of making this a learning scenario for younger players.

I don't think Don Quixote made it to Ferrybridge ;-)

Can't help on numbers. You'd have to guess 'quite a few' given 3000 casualties. I can't remember the exact set-up, but a river crossing might not give the simplest game. Maybe some of the earlier actions in the campaign would be better?

The 2nd river crossing at "Castleford" was about 4 miles away by Google Maps.

I can shrink that distance down on the table slightly to still include that in the game w/out being overly far away.

Other than that the only other hurdle I see is dealing with crossing (and repairing) the damaged bridge. That shouldn't be too much trouble (see below)

For the numbers I'm leaning towards having 2k Lancastrians under Clifford & Nevile.

The Yorkists with 4k will arrive one "Battle" per turn under Warwick, Fauconberg, and Fitzwalter. Thus the Yorkists will start the game with a disadvantage in numbers but these will be quickly reinforced.

I'm thinking of telling the Yorkists that there may be an alternate crossing but they have to search for it.

The Yorkists in the mean time may attempt to cross the main bridge but only 1 unit at a time and only in column which should be pretty brutal for them.

I welcome any additional input!

What is your basis for 3,000 casualties? As the armies at Towton were most likely about 10,000 a side then that's a lot of dead bodies which have never been found.

Don't believe the hype about Ferrybridge/Towton being the biggest battle every fought in England. That's based on chronicler "evidence" which is completely unreliable.

Re: Ferrybridge #s, this is from Wikipedia:

Christopher Gravett, Towton 1461:England's Bloodiest Battle, 38.
Sutherland, Tim (2009).

"Killing Time: Challenging the Common Perceptions of Three Medieval Conflicts – Ferrybridge, Dintingdale and Towton – 'The Largest Battle on British Soil'" Journal of Conflict Archaeology.

As to Towton Im aware of some of the current trends towards lower numbers. I find the idea of 7,000 per side highly suspect.

In choosing the numbers I'm going with for Towton I referenced these sources:

Gravett, Christopher (2003). Towton 1461: England's Bloodiest Battle (PDF). Campaign. Vol. 120. Oxford, UK: Osprey Publishing

Sadler, John (2011). Towton: The Battle of Palm Sunday Field 1461. Barnsley: Pen & Sword Military

George Goodwin and 1 more
Fatal Colours: Towton 1461-England's Most Brutal Battle.

Philip Haigh
From Wakefield to Towton: The Wars of the Roses (Battleground Britain 1460–1461)

(Good read)
link

(Good read)
link

"It all fits together and points to two possible explanations. Perhaps the 18-year-old Edward IV (r. 1461-70; 1471-83) was running a concerted propaganda campaign to inflate the figures, for reasons we can scarcely conjecture. If so, this was coordinated to such an extent that even Peter Mandelson might purr with admiration. Or perhaps the explanation is simpler: this was the accepted figure on the basis of being ‘as counted by the heralds', the official appointees for such a role. It was also a figure given first-hand, or at least second-hand by notable people of the day, not by monastic chroniclers away from the action and out of context."

In choosing the numbers I'm going with for Towton I referenced these sources:

However, they are all secondary sources which to varying degrees rely on the chronicler "evidence" which is completely unreliable as Trebian said.

I think the main problem with the high numbers is that the battlefield simply isn't big enough to accommodate them.

Fair enough Major.

Btw if I do ever get around to Towton im leaning towards 25k for the Lanc's and 20k for the Yorkists.

Smaller that the traditional numbers but still too large I'm sure you'd both argue.

Next you'll be telling me there were no left over Scottish from the 2nd Battle of St Albans on the Lancastrians side!

Well, U.K.? Were there? I'd love to know! Back in August 2020 (and again in 2021) I asked about that very subject, hoping that the real WotR experts here would weigh in on the topic, but nobody responded at the time . So once again with feeling -

Does anyone have information on the size and/or composition of the Scottish contingent that formed part of Margaret's army in the 1460-61 campaign? I have read that it was led by the Earl of Douglas, and I know that Margaret spent Christmas 1460 in Scotland and was not present at Wakefield. But some of my sources have her leading the Scots south prior to Wakefield and then returning to Scotland, while others have them accompanying her only after the New Year.

Additionally, is there any record of what happened to them after 2nd St Albans? Did they return home, or did any of them stick around for Towton?

The most common answer I've received is that they "all went home after looting the North of the country but before 2nd St Albans".

I choose to keep a small contingent at Towton mostly for color. I've put them under Percy's command as he was no doubt used to dealing with them.

The actual answer is I don't think anyone knows.

These are my photos of Ferrybridge.

link

The photo captions include my account of the battle.

The bridge is 18th or 19th century and is far wider than it would have been then. The original was probably one wagon or two horses wide and might have been part wooden.

Barry

I think it a reasonable assumption that Ferrybridge involved at the most, only the vanguards of the armies who faced off at Towton. I am not sure the French source for the number of casualties is at all reliable. There is the possibility of mass drowning as one side fled (as at Brentford, Austerlitz-Jena or Fort Pillow, for example), but the absence of evidence of the capture or ransom or execution of the losing nobles suggests that such a one-sided victory did not occur. It's all 'best guess'-work, but if the armies at Towton were about 25,000 for Edward IV and 30,000 for Beaufort, Ferrybridge might only have involved 3-5,000 per side, assuming that the respective vanguards were concentrated in seizing one crossing, and not dispersed along the river a few miles looking for others.

On the other hand, if you accept 3,000 casualties as the starting point, Warwick's van might realistically have been 6-7,000 strong, in order to sustain a high proportion of these casualties and still force the crossing. The Lancastrian defenders would then be less in number, though probably stronger in archers, as we have to explain how they inflicted so many casualties in such a confined space over a short period of time and still be driven off.

It's a hunch either way, for sure, but to my mind it doesn't make sense that so many persons could have been killed or maimed in contesting a relatively minor river-crossing; when it suited both commanders to let the other approach in order to fight a decisive engagement.

@Reigcide: The total of 55,000 for both sides present is very unlikely and isn't based on any hard evidence. Raising 20,000 for an army in this period in England is something only a King could do with full control of the Kingdom and months of preparation. See Agincourt campaign & Edward in France in1475 for examples of this. Based on acts of Parliament and other evidence the military capacity of England was about 20,000 in one go. I went into this in quite a bit of detail in my book on Edgcote when trying to work out how many people were there. The big numbers in chronicler sources often arise because they are monks or similar and their experience of army numbers comes from reading scriptures where the armies are REALLY big, based on translation issues.