"Wars of the Roses painting guide..." Topic

As a newcomer to this conflict, I'd like to ask the veterans what sources are best for painting. I need to know a bit about heraldry as well as colours etc. for archers and billmen. Osprey seems sparse in this area (mostly battle guides) but maybe I am looking at the wrong things…

LAF has a link on this: link
I always used the Freezywater guide to the Badges and Heraldry but lent it out…

A good place to start would be the booklet from Freezywater Publications- Standards, Badges and Livery Colours of the Wars of the Roses. It gives an explanation of the different types of flags, what was on them and also includes 36 colour plates of standards used. It's available from the Lance and Longbow Society ( lanceandlongbow.com ), though their website is being fixed at the mo', but an email should get you availability, price and postage.

The Company of Saint George are 15th-century re-enactors who do a marvelous job of illustrating period military (and civilian) garb: companie-of-st-george.ch

The first thing you should do is get Graham Turner's War of the Roses art book, which came out recently. He illustrated the plates in the three Osprey Wars of the Roses campaign guides on Bosworth, Towton, and Tewkesbury:
tinyurl.com/4efw8zyp

Each of the Perry Miniatures Wars of the Roses boxed sets have painting guides with flags inside of each box and there are several variations available. Also, on the box of the infantry/archer set there are painting guides showing the colors and livery symbols for the various lords and knights.

Unfortunately, the Wars of the Roses are one of the worst recorded wars in history, despite it being in the 15th century. Many of the heraldic devices worn on the livery coats are conjecture, not to mention the bewildering variations due to fathers being slain, then sons taking up the mantle, etc. There is a pretty good database here on livery colors:
link

I would definitely second the recommendation for Graham Turner's book. Gorgeous.
And then the Freezywater publications for lots of info.

I agree about the quality of Turner's book, aegiscg47 and Silurian, but for someone just getting into the maze of liveries, arms, banners, standards, etc, then I think the Freezywater booklets will be more beneficial. Turner briefly addresses liveries (p. 44) and heraldry, but he looks more at the history of the conflicts than at any real detail on which type of flag was carried by someone's household archers. For painting inspiration, or just for his artwork, it's brilliant, but not "wargames level" informative.

Another option is Wars of the Roses Heraldry, by Jones and Pritchard. It gives some examples of standards, banners and "guidons" (what they call the smaller company standards/pennons).

As you prepare to paint your armies, you may wish to consider what effect you're going for. Is your goal to present as accurate a depiction of all of the men and arrays on the tabletop, or are you willing to sacrifice some historical fidelity to achieve a greater degree of visual comprehensibility to your wargames?

What I mean is:
(1) The same livery combinations were used by multiple lords, often on opposing sides;
(2) Contingents (wards) and smaller units (if they existed as such) which were ostensibly under the banner of a great magnate like Warwick or Somerset were in turn largely composed of retinues of those magnate's followers – most of whom had their own liveries! Hence it is quite possible that the majority of, say, Warwick's 600 men would be in completely different liveries than his red; and
(3) Considering the cost of livery cloth, it might not always have been universally distributed to a given lord's retainers but perhaps reserved for his favored servants. So a significant proportion of men might have had no livery at all.

The result of an absolute adherence to historical fidelity could therefore result in both sides presenting "units" that are a kaleidoscope of colors, with no way to distinguish the sides unless one knows all of the banners. Realistic yes, but confusing to passersby and perhaps even to the players.

If I was starting my WotR armies from scratch, I think now that I would paint armies in two liveries only, one in red and black (Lancastrian) and one in blue and white (York). I would restrict correct livery colors and badges to flags and banners only (the standard-bearers being on separate stands to switch out from battle to battle). At an individual unit level it would be historically inaccurate, but at a gaming (and presentation) level it would be more useful. Horses for courses.

Thanks for such excellent, detailed replies! There appears to be a knowledgeable community out there. I'll go for the Turner book – it looks like a good source of inspiration as well as of information. And Eumelas's idea of 'team colours' sounds like a practical approach. Those on-line resources are worth investigating as well. My enthusiasm is for the history of the latter part of the period, also because I love the look of full plate harness from this time. There are also some great miniatures available. Absolute historical accuracy in appearance comes second, especially as some of the minis could be used for other conflicts…

Eumelus, I admire your idea of "team colours" but I have Lancastrian units in my collection in blue and white, in particular Somerset and Henry VI. Maybe blue and murrey more suitable for Yorkists – e.g. March (Edward IV), Hastings, Gloucester and Clarence?

Sorry for the late reply, was away from tech for awhile.

MacColla, you're absolutely right that blue and white was Plantagenet livery – hence Henry VI, and the barred-from-succession Beaufort branch (Somerset) wore it reversed as white and blue. But Richard of York also therefore used blue and white, as did his sons. Apparently his son Edward replaced the white with murrey to reference his father's death at Wakefield. But as Mortimer's Cross was scarcely five weeks after Wakefield and Towton no more than three months later, I suspect that only the immediate household retainers got new livery for those battles, the majority making do with their old blue-and-white. (Naturally all Yorkist livery would have been blue-and-murrey for the second round of fighting ten years later.)

(and just to underscore my point about the same liveries worn by both sides, Fauconberg also wore white and blue.)

I would pick red and black for Lancastrians primarily for maximum contrast to blue-and-white, but also because it was the livery of the Prince of Wales and also several prominent Lancastrian lords (Northumberland, Shrewsbury, and also reversed black-and-red Buckingham).

And to underscore the former point yet again, it is perfectly true that red and black was also used by Yorkist Salisbury! But in this sort of thought experiment one has to pick something. And for me at least it is not going to be more than a thought experiment – I've painted my units in 11 different liveries and I'm not going to repaint now. But if I had to do it all over again, I'd sacrifice strict historical accuracy for the sake of a more comprehensible battlefield appearance. Kurusawa was onto something…