Pendraken Miniatures Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
13 December 2019, 04:30:27 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
The 1809 Napoleonic expansion has been released!
287671 Posts in 17108 Topics by 2194 Members
Latest Member: Morty
* Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
+  Pendraken Miniatures Forum
|-+  Wider Wargaming
| |-+  General Discussion (Moderators: mad lemmey, Techno)
| | |-+  ECW - what is realistic scenery?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Go Down Print
Author Topic: ECW - what is realistic scenery?  (Read 639 times)
steve_holmes_11
Major
*
Posts: 550


« Reply #15 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.

Logged
GridGame
Cadet

Posts: 15


« Reply #16 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.
Logged
Steve J
General
*
Posts: 7596


« Reply #17 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.
Logged

http://wwiiwargaming.blogspot.co.uk/

2017 Paint-Off - 2 x Winner!
ianrs54
Playtester
Lieutenant General
*
Posts: 7096



WWW
« Reply #18 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...
Logged

FOG IN CHANNEL - EUROPE CUT OFF HURRAY

Muppet of the year 2019
GridGame
Cadet

Posts: 15


« Reply #19 on: 29 November 2019, 10:54:56 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.

Logged
mad lemmey
Moderator
Marquis
********
*
*
Posts: 20049



« Reply #20 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.

Logged

Chekov's Gun, Occam's Razor, and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle walk into a bar. You won't believe what happens next!

2016 Pendraken Painting Competion Participation Prize  (Lucky Dip Catagory) Winner 😎
Big Insect
Major
*
*
*
Posts: 521


« Reply #21 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
 
Logged
mad lemmey
Moderator
Marquis
********
*
*
Posts: 20049



« Reply #22 on: 30 November 2019, 09:04:43 AM »

Battle of the Beanfield?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Beanfield
Logged

Chekov's Gun, Occam's Razor, and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle walk into a bar. You won't believe what happens next!

2016 Pendraken Painting Competion Participation Prize  (Lucky Dip Catagory) Winner 😎
Pages: 1 [2] Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!