"Smaller infantry units at warlord epic scale ?" Topic

I'm painting up a bunch of epic pike and shotte stands for Edgehill based on the bcw project oob. The infantry count for each side is roughly the same, but the royalists have quite a few more regiment of foote, suggesting they had less men per regiment.

It's quite hard to represent a small unit at epic scale, short of getting the clippers out and hacking at plastic. Warlord have an Edgehill scenario where they have several pike only units to cover this, but I'm wondering if this is really historically accurate.

Would armies of 1642 really field pike only, or shot only units ? (Commanded shot aside). If not did they just field smaller units with the same ratio of shot to pike ? It doesn't look easy to cut a shot strip in half, like I know some people have done with ACW. Any other suggestions for representing a smaller mixed unit ?

I can't think off the top of my head of any pike only deployments during the Wars of the Three Kingdoms. Not saying it never happened, but in open battle I don't recall seeing any references.

Cutting Epic strips can be done, I've seen a few examples. Personally, life is too short. Have a look at Steel Fist or Peter Pig to create smaller units. Alternatively just go shot only

Combine several small units into one regular unit.

79th is correct, smaller units would be brigaded into a full, or nearly full strength 'regiment'. This was seen later during the First Civil War, the most prominent example being Marston Moor. Certainly not the case at Edgehill where everyone was 'new' and somewhat keen to represent their side.

What exactly constituted a full strength regiment was a case of wishful thinking. Theoretically it was supposed to be about 1000 men, many full strength regiments were more in the 6-700 men strong. The LTB are most accurately documented and they vary from 1000 – 1200. Newcastle and Manchester both fielded double strength regiments. Newcastle famously fielding 14 companies at Marston.

With the Epic figures, and how they have been created, I really wouldn't worry about trying too hard at representing accurate RoF strengths.

Ah yes I could do that, I'd not thought of that before. I could even paint whole units and then just mix the stands up for Edgehill and add some ensigns, so I don't have random half units I hardly use.

I assume LTB = London Trained Bands and RoF = Regiment of Foot. Anyone care to enlighten me about "bcw"?

British Civil Wars, another, slightly less accurate term than Wars of the Three Kingdoms that describes the series of conflicts that took place on the archipelago that is known geographically as the British Isles

More usually known as the ECW ?

Despite the Scottish and Irish participants.

Thanks. My ignorance is slightly less glaring now!

Sorry, BCW project is a great site for ecw data, orders of battle and even flags. link

I assumed if I knew what it was they everyone must, cos I don't know much.

ECW specifically describes just one war. There were 2 Bishops' Wars, a Second and Third Civil War, the 11 Years War (which is an all embracing umbrella term for a number of stops start wars in Ireland), conflict in Scotland during the Commonwealth, then a whole host of uprisings. Not forgetting naval warfare taking place in the WIndies among other parts of the world.

There's even an argument that the Monmouth Rebellion was yet another civil war that could be included on the timeline of the Wars of the Three Kingdoms. The whole thing was only truly settled with the Glorious Revolution.

Utilising the term ECW to describe the plethora of conflicts was incorrect when the Victorians coined it 180 years ago.

I've always hated the term "Wars of the Three Kingdoms", ever since I first came across it in a book title and had a rush of euphoria thinking it would be a military history of the _real_ Three Kingdoms, followed by crushing disappointment on discovering it wasn't.

Hapy Hiker -- Thanks for the link to the BCW Project. I'm sure I will find it very useful.

Jim