Pendraken Miniatures Forum

Wider Wargaming => General Discussion => Topic started by: GridGame on 26 November 2019, 03:53:56 PM

Title: ECW - what is realistic scenery?
Post by: GridGame on 26 November 2019, 03:53:56 PM
Most wargamers appear to take care to ensure that the opposing forces are reasonably compatible with history. However a question that has been bugging me is 'correct terrain'. Trying to research ECW battlefields (via the Net) seems to show three things
1] not always sure exactly where the battlefield was, or
2] the landscape in the locality at that time, although
3] some did appear to be big open areas (so plenty of room to manoeuvre cavalry).

I have been wargaming some ECW whilst my figures get painted. For terrain I use a pack of 'terrain cards' dealing 9 cards onto my grid + 1 spare. I use the spare as an option to replace one of the other 9. I have added pictures of the terrain selected for a recent game, I did use the spare card put an 'open space' in the central section rather than the 'copse & hedge' drawn.

When I played the game cavalry manoeuvres were limited to mainly the Royalist right flank.

And so the question: Am I unrealistically filling the game area with scenery?

A few points:
The red square is a group of farm buildings, and the 'white/grey square adjacent is an enclosed field.
6 Parliament units defended against the attack of 8 Royalist units. Parliament lost (badly).
I didn't put this on 'Batreps' as the forces are currently card markers.
Overhead shot. (https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49127912711_fe0145a508.jpg)
From the Royalist side(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49127011788_93c375d215.jpg)
From the Parliament side.(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49127502551_fe9b87655c.jpg)
Title: Re: ECW - what is realistic scenery?
Post by: Steve J on 26 November 2019, 04:25:56 PM
As I understand it, the enclosures hadn't happened yet (or not to any great extent) to the the land was still very open by today's standards. There were some hedges, obviously fields and some woods, with the latter out of the way of the major battles. I would recommend looking at the following, as there is lots of info including maps, photos etc of each battle:

http://www.battlefieldstrust.com/resource-centre/civil-war/ (http://www.battlefieldstrust.com/resource-centre/civil-war/)
Title: Re: ECW - what is realistic scenery?
Post by: paulr on 26 November 2019, 06:39:14 PM
An interesting terrain system and a very interesting question  :)

I look forward to more responses
Title: Re: ECW - what is realistic scenery?
Post by: FierceKitty on 27 November 2019, 12:15:06 AM
Hmmm, very important question, and one I admit I have too often overlooked. Certainly I have been struck in travelling in southern England that the countrysde, while beautiful, looks as if it would often severely restrict choices for cavalry operations. Perhaps the word "moor" in a number of important battles should be taken as a clue?
Title: Re: ECW - what is realistic scenery?
Post by: Norm on 27 November 2019, 08:36:09 AM
Can't go wrong with hedges, woods and low hills for this period. The process of land drainage  and some enclosure had started, so you would see less boggy / marshy land than had been prevalent in previous periods and hedge boundaries and ditches, marking the division of land was more prevalent.

The thing about this countryside is that it doesn't really have large expanses of totally flat land, there are undulations aplenty, a sort of low rolling landscape. In our wargames we are generally happy just to have all this as open, but it was this landscape that brought tactical nuance to battles as there were defensive positions on slight rises and if your army has around an 800 metres frontage, there is every chance that portions of that force will be out of view from other positions.

I was at the Bosworth battlefield centre (yes I know, wrong 'exact' location of the battle, but the area is much of a muchness) and on any point that you stand, other parts of the battlefield can feel high enough or low enough that the rises hold real tactical advantages and because some approached are obscured by undulations, you could no doubt suddenly find cavalry or infantry popping up close to you. I have always felt that in our games, although we generally show things as open, the dice is taking care of all of this, so rolling a 1 when the enemy appears 'obviously' vulnerable to fire, is likely just representing some of that ground obscurity etc.
Title: Re: ECW - what is realistic scenery?
Post by: Lord Kermit of Birkenhead on 27 November 2019, 08:39:13 AM
Sorry Norm, not many hedges in the 17th century, enclosure didn't happen till later. More woods, and a town of any size would probably be fortified.

IanS
Title: Re: ECW - what is realistic scenery?
Post by: GridGame on 27 November 2019, 02:09:14 PM
All

Thanks for the input: looks like I need to do more research.

GridGame
Title: Re: ECW - what is realistic scenery?
Post by: sunjester on 27 November 2019, 05:23:09 PM
There is an illustration of the Battle of Naseby which was drawn a couple of years later for a book by Sir Thomas Fairfax's chaplain, Joshua Sprigge. It shows some hedged enclosures and a couple of what might be boundry hedges. There is a reasonable copy here https://collection.nam.ac.uk/detail.php?acc=1977-04-44-1
Title: Re: ECW - what is realistic scenery?
Post by: GridGame on 28 November 2019, 11:04:12 AM
Quote from: paulr on 26 November 2019, 06:39:14 PM
An interesting terrain system ...

Paulr - I feel a separate topic, coming soon, to give an explanation.

Regards GridGame
Title: Re: ECW - what is realistic scenery?
Post by: mollinary on 28 November 2019, 11:33:11 AM
Quote from: ianrs54 on 27 November 2019, 08:39:13 AM
Sorry Norm, not many hedges in the 17th century, enclosure didn't happen till later. More woods, and a town of any size would probably be fortified.

IanS

You are right that most of the enclosures took place in the eighteenth century, but there were already numerous hedges in many parts of England, and they featured prominently in many of the smaller battles in the West Country and Yorkshire,  as well as at the big battles of , Edgehill, 1st Newbury, Cheriton, Marston Moor, and Naseby.
Title: Re: ECW - what is realistic scenery?
Post by: Lord Kermit of Birkenhead on 28 November 2019, 11:59:18 AM
Mollinary - in the 17th century, hedges were  a rare feature, which is why the one a Naseby is made note of. Occupied by Parliamentary dragons who had considerable effect on Royalist cavalry.

IanS
Title: Re: ECW - what is realistic scenery?
Post by: FierceKitty on 28 November 2019, 12:35:38 PM
I suspect dragons would have had a considerable effect of Alexandrian Hetairoi, Sassanid Pushtigban, Knights Templar, Hussar comrades, Takeda Samurai, and Seydlitz's cuirassiers all at once!
Title: Re: ECW - what is realistic scenery?
Post by: Lord Kermit of Birkenhead on 28 November 2019, 01:24:50 PM
Almost as frightening as hefalumps or wozzels I would think !
Title: Re: ECW - what is realistic scenery?
Post by: mollinary on 28 November 2019, 03:48:57 PM
Quote from: ianrs54 on 28 November 2019, 11:59:18 AM
Mollinary - in the 17th century, hedges were  a rare feature, which is why the one a Naseby is made note of. Occupied by Parliamentary dragons who had considerable effect on Royalist cavalry.

IanS

Ian, I am sorry, mate, but they appear on far more ECW Battles than that. All the battles I mentioned have eye witness accounts mentioning them. Hedges are also mentioned at  Adwalton Moor,  Powick Bridge, Babylon Hill, Launceston, Stratton, Nantwich, Braddock Down, and Langport. Many of these have nothing to do with the enclosure of common land, but line roads, lanes and fords.  Obviously, armies with a preponderance of horse did not like fighting in such terrain, but those with more infantry did. Remember Mercurius Aulicus mockery of Sir William Waller’s position on Bourton Hill at Cropredy Bridge: “You know his condition of old, hills, bogs, HEDGES, these you must grant him, he’ll not fight else.”   ;) ;)
Title: Re: ECW - what is realistic scenery?
Post by: sunjester on 28 November 2019, 04:58:22 PM
Also at the Battle of Charlgrove the Royalists used "an impenetrable great hedge" to protect their flank in the maneuvering  before the battle and later the Parliament dragoons sheltered behind a hedge that Prince Rupert and his cavalry had to jump in order to get to grips with them.
Title: Re: ECW - what is realistic scenery?
Post by: steve_holmes_11 on 28 November 2019, 05:24:56 PM
Compared to now:

Far less land covered by fields: Common grazing, and rather fewer people to feed.

The land that is split into enclosures (for animals) will have local style walls or fences.

Arable fields much smaller than today (No Tractors), various styles of field division, often down to local preference.

Orchards, usually surrounded by high hedge as a windbreak, and often situated against the southern (brick)wall of a large house.

Title: Re: ECW - what is realistic scenery?
Post by: GridGame on 28 November 2019, 10:26:46 PM
Thank you all for your input.

As I noted in an earlier post I needed to do more research: now mostly complete. I have, as recommended, looked at the UK Battlefields Resource centre website. There are 17 recorded battles up to the end of 1643. (I'm concentrating on the early years up to the start of 1644 for my wargaming). Looking at 9 of the 17 patterns emerge:

Braddock Down ('43), fought on an open common but Royalist musketeers were deployed forward into enclosures.

Brentford ('42): Many enclosed fields which restricted cavalry operations giving way to a predominantly musketeer battle.

Piercebridge ('42). Suggestion that Parliamentarians forces slowed Royalist forces moving towards the bridge by giving fire from the built up area of the town leading to the bridge.

Powick Bridge ('42), An action report notes cavalry advancing along a narrow lane 'passing through hedged enclosures'.

Landsdown hill ('43): Parliamentarians deployed on top of a hill with very steep slopes. (Undeterred) Royalist attack up that slope which had a wooded area they appear to have made full use of.  Parliamentarians were concerned about being flanked by Royalists units in woods, and so they retired to the cover of a wall.

Newbury 1 ('43) Parliamentarians dictated the exact point of engagement to a (quote) 'largely enclosed landscape'. This negated the Royalists cavalry superiority and enhanced the Parliamentarians strength of their infantry.

Stratton ('43): Parliamentarians chose a dominant hill position to deploy.

Turnham Green ('42), musketeers were deployed in hedgerows.

Winceby ('43). Suggestion that the exact location is not clear but that local field enclosure must have had an influence being avoided so room to manoeuvre was not hindered.

Conclusions:

Considering my analysis above, and comments made on this topic:

There were enclosed fields, walls, wooded areas and hedges that played a significant role in a number of engagements.

BUT as an answer to my original question:

It is realistic to get a 'wargame battle area' that is restrictive to cavalry or pike units in the ECW.

Perhaps I need to dice for battle type?
A] Specific location, e.g. a river crossing,
B] An open field battle area
C] Restrictive battle area,
and then use the random cards to select the exact terrain/terrain features.
Title: Re: ECW - what is realistic scenery?
Post by: Steve J on 29 November 2019, 07:26:22 AM
I think you can simply vary the terrain to suit a type of engagement you might want to replicate, so more open for cavalry heavy, more closed for mainly infantry etc. For the larger battles I would venture to say largely open areas with more closed terrain on the flanks in places.
Title: Re: ECW - what is realistic scenery?
Post by: Lord Kermit of Birkenhead on 29 November 2019, 08:39:55 AM
ASked about this last night - ploughing was a bit different - always done down hill, which made them a major obstacle to cavalry - horses with broken legs etc...
Title: Re: ECW - what is realistic scenery?
Post by: GridGame on 29 November 2019, 10:54:56 AM
Quote from: Steve J on 29 November 2019, 07:26:22 AM
I think you can simply vary the terrain to suit a type of engagement you might want to replicate, so more open for cavalry heavy, more closed for mainly infantry etc. For the larger battles I would venture to say largely open areas with more closed terrain on the flanks in places.
In truth this I what I tend to do. Any tweaking also takes into account the number and quality of units in the opposing forces so setting a terrain which will challenge the tactics and so hopefully give a better game.

Title: Re: ECW - what is realistic scenery?
Post by: Duke Speedy of Leighton on 29 November 2019, 07:44:24 PM
'A' Level Social Economic History time...
Upland areas were more enclosed areas, long before the 17th century, usually on the valley bottoms to stop free range grazing beasts getting into crops.
Especially South Shropshire and the Lake district, there has been evidence of Vikings building dry stone walls in Cumbria.
There is a trick of every 100 yards of hedgerow, each variety of tree/bush is a 100 years of growth.

Title: Re: ECW - what is realistic scenery?
Post by: Big Insect on 29 November 2019, 11:41:04 PM
We had a really interesting talks at the Society of Ancients (SoA) conference a month back, about a couple of Wars of the Roses battles - Edgecote and Bosworth - and the evidence being thrown up by the largest archaeological project in the UK at present - the HS2 rail line. The proposed rail-line route passes close enough to both battlefields to warrant extensive and wide ranging archaeology as neither battlefield has ever been sited accurately, until now.

What was really clear was the impact that ridge and furrow strip agriculture must have had on battles.
Over centuries the fields were ploughed in pretty much the same direction creating substantial ridges (& furrows) - see these modern images of old abandoned ridge & furrow in the landscape of Gloucestershire: https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/640050

Fighting along the ridges might have been ok, but across them would have been a nightmare - and this might have determined the deployment of armies and the outcomes of battles.
I am not sure whether by the ECW these ridges & furrows had been ploughed out, but my guess is maybe not.

The other item effecting battles is the crops being grown. Right up to the C18th in the UK anyway one of the core crops was peas and beans - a staple that was part of crop rotation and also ideal protien to be dried for winter use. However, it was grown on twigs or sticks, so a pea field might well have looked like a massive abatis or Sudanese zhariba!

NB: I have started to use brown tight-weave sizel floor tiles to represent fields in my 15mm games - as they do give the impression of the ridged fields.
I do also wonder if it was a ridged & furrowed battle-field at Agincourt that also gave the English army an additional advantage?

Food for thought

Mark

Title: Re: ECW - what is realistic scenery?
Post by: Duke Speedy of Leighton on 30 November 2019, 09:04:43 AM
Battle of the Beanfield?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Beanfield