"Why Game the Wars of the Roses (Round 2)" Topic

Still looking for those "well-recorded battles." I'll settle for
1. Confirmed location.
2. Size and composition of both armies to within, say plus or minus 50%.
3. A couple paragraphs on how the battle was actually fought--NOT personalities of the leadership or who was beheaded in the aftermath, but where bills, bows and men at arms stood and fought in relation to one another.

Any suggestions?

"Make it up with your available figures!"
That's my advice.
The only time I ever was fanatic about getting the OOB and map correct was a massive Trenton AWI game years ago. Each Hessian regiment had at least 80 figures… 😱
Massive megalomaniac event.
Ever since then, it's been "They are who I say they are, and if you don't like it, just shut up."

Still looking for those "well-recorded battles

Considering the information available for any battle of that period then they are, comparatively, well-recorded. What level of detail do you require, Robert? Official History, contemporary drill manual and Nafziger-style ORBAT levels?

Though contemporary videos of Towton and Bosworth would come in handy……

I'll chip in toward both those videos, Dal. What can I say? I was a ground OOB analyst for about a quarter century. "Make it up!" is not how I approach historical miniatures.

What I'd really like is maps similar to those in Duffy or Oman--scaled representations of the battlefield showing how the armies deployed. But of course drill manuals and reasonably reliable numbers underly those.

From the ECW onward, I know, more or less, how much space a given number of horse or foot would take up, and how they interacted with each other. I have scaled maps of serious engagements. The classical world is not quite so historical miniature-friendly, but it works on roughly a DBA level.

In between, things tend to be spotty, but my understanding was that the more prominent battles of the Hundred Years War were understood at some level--we knew the battlefields of Crecy, Agincourt, Formigny and several others, roughly how many participants per side, about how many were of each arm, and how the various elements were deployed. The same seems to be true of Flodden and Pinkie. But I worked WotR for years and in three scales paying a depressing amount of money for reference material and never, ever, nailed a single field battle to the point of being able to say "X many men formed up on a frontage of Y yards" so I'd have something for calibration. Same thing with proportions of bows, bills and men at arms. Same thing with number of ranks or width of files. Nothing but heraldry and livery colors.

I finally sold off everything smaller than 28mm, and integrated the 28's with the fantasy armies. I've been routed on many a tabletop, but as an OOB analyst, it's one of my top three defeats.

Let's try the reverse. Dal, what's your minimum standard for saying a battle is "well-documented?"

Is there ANY battle in history that can be "accurately" depicted on a Wargame table?
And I'm including anything from 4000BC to 2025AD.

Just put your toys, well painted I hope, on the table and roll dice.
Harrumph.

I voted for Kingmaker, by the way.

Dal, what's your minimum standard for saying a battle is "well-documented?"

Good question, Robert, particularly as the researching is as much part of my enjoyment of the hobby as pushing figures and models around a table. As a baseline I'll look for at least two trusted sources (more on "trusted" below) that are in general agreement (details may vary slightly) which I can use. By "sources" I usually mean a detailed publication that contains the information I want, though a website suits more often, these days (eg Kronoskaf, but as a member of that site I am obviously biased- however I know the extent of the research Kronoskaf members do, too).

How do I decide that a source can be trusted? It's bloody difficult, I admit. Reviews by authorities I already trust, familiarity with some of the author's previous works and, hopefully, being able to test it against another trusted source. It's a system that is far from foolproof and I've made mistakes before. Unfortunately finding any, let alone two or three sources to trust isn't always possible. The information I want might not exist, they may not be (relatively) easy to access, the only available sources may disagree, or they may all draw on the same "accepted history", which itself isn't trustworthy. Sometimes, if I want to game a period, I have to choose whether to drop my standards and accept the information that's available, or drop the project (hopefully before I've spent any money on it- books excepted).

My background is technical and I've run technical investigations, so gathering documentary evidence is a taught and practised skill. Also, my last job was as a technical writer, occasional technical editor and configuration manager in Defence (procurement and sustainment side), so I know how to make pedantry look like carelessness when trying to confirm information. (I was going to offer an example, but that's too much like bragging for my taste.)

With the WotR the interest was strong enough to overcome the lack of contemporary resources and look at who I thought offered the best available information. In the end I decided to use the L&LBS as my "trusted source". A lot of their information is taken from near- contemporary or contemporary illustrations and documents, from examples of what contemporary forces were doing and/or how they were organised, and extrapolation from previous and future English practice. So I accept that dismounted men at arms often formed the first, sometimes also the second ranks of "close combat" units, where possible, and that units look to be organised (as much as possible) around groups of ten, 20 or 50 troops. Cavalry was rarely used on the battlefield in large numbers, at least early in the war, and fully barded horses were rare. (Admittedly I gave my leaders barding for their horses- sometimes I give history the archers' salute, just for the look of the thing).

L&LBS may be wrong, but the chances are just as likely that they'll be close enough for wargaming purposes, too.

Sorry to be so long winded. But you asked, mate.

Just put your toys, well painted I hope, on the table and roll dice.
Harrumph.

Define "well painted", John.

Double Harrumph.

Good answer, Dal. I'll have to give the L&LBS (and their sources) another look. Is there a starting point you'd recommend?

OFM, I'll call it "accurately" if
1. Tactically important terrain is there taking up the right space.
2. Units are there, taking up pretty much the right frontages and not badly enough off in depth to mess with second lines.
3. What happens when opposing forces interact is pretty much what historical documents lead us to expect.

And yes, I think we sometimes have enough information to pull it off--and if we have the information, it's only a matter of eventually being clever enough to get the rules right.

I think for land warfare at least, it's easiest to get right in Europe and North America between about 1640 and 1871, and in battles--well, say Cowpens size and larger. We generally do know which units took part, how many men and how much space they should have taken up, and we have decent maps accounts of how they interacted on the battlefield. People might prefer to game other periods for any number of reasons, but if my primary objective was to put a historical battle on a tabletop, that's where I'd start.

What would you require (or accept) for "accurately?"

Typical. I went to the L&LBS site and it's having problems, the shop is closed and you can't even get a list of their publications. However, you can download a back list at PDF link , but the prices and what's available may both have changed. An email to their US agent (BURKER1@aol.com) may get you a current list and US prices, mate.

Where to start? What I did was read their book reviews ( lanceandlongbow.com/reviews.php ), hoping get a feel for how they do things. Then I got their Standards, Badges & Livery Colours of the Wars of the Roses booklet. You may prefer to get a back issue CD of The Hobilar, mate, and get a feel for the information they present. You may even be able to compare their info' with other sources you trust. Their CD's cover 50 issues and are fully indexed- below is a sample. If they're acceptable you could pick either one of their battle booklets or even one of their army lists for their rules, Poleaxed. The rules have a strong whiff of WRG6th to them, at least in my opinion.

The Bill- A Medieval Arms Race, Issue 10- Barry Slemmings

Edward IV's Invasion Army of 1475 (Ratio of Archers to Men-at-Arms), Issue 11- Pat McGill

Polish Medieval Heraldry, Issue 12- Graham Harrison

The Billmen and 15th Century English Battle Tactics, Issue 16- Pat McGill

For me it's because one of the guys in the group has a bunch of amazingly well painted WoR minis, terrain and rules – and he is a history fanatic so has done all the research – ideal situation for the lazy gamer in me

" ideal situation for the lazy gamer in me"

Nothing wrong with that Frederick. Lazy people are efficient people. They don't want to do a job twice, so they try to get it right first time.

It worked like a charm for me.

I think the only valid reason is "Because I want to."