New Model Army ratios

[mmcv]

What's the general thinking on the ratio of pike to shot for the New Model Army?

On paper they were intended to be 2:1 but reading through the Naseby campaign book from osprey it suggests it might be closer to 4:1.

It goes through the Royalists at Naseby giving a fairly good breakdown of the ratios for each part of the army but is a bit more vague on the NMA.

I'd originally done a few units as 2:1 but thinking they should all be musket heavy at that point in the war.

[paulr]

Not sure about the New Model Army but by Cheriton (March 1644) ratios were about 3:1 although there were quite a few units of commanded shot created probably leaving some units pike heavy

[DecemDave]

From Glen Foard in "Naseby"  isbn 0 946014 41 8  which includes (p58ff) discussion on building the NMA and an appendix on actual procurement contracts. they include purchasing 7 contracts of long (16ft) pikes [my total 2,400 pikes} but contrast 9,000 swords and belts, 5600 muskets,  6,000 bandoleers.     recognising that it started low strength from existing armies with existing equipment and this is supplying recruits and some re-supply.

So  he sticks with a 2:1 paper strength of about 9600 musketeers / 4800 pikes in about 12 regiments of 1200 paper strength .  Its still only just over 2:1 in the new equipment.   Note though that there is no extant purchase contract for pikemen armour . 

There is a whole chapter on actual strengths, i think his conclusion is around 7-800 men average in a regiment but Id need to read it again to be sure.

[mmcv]

Yeah though as you say that's mostly for new recruits and resupply. There were around 7000 veterans folded in and presumably they would have weapons already from them and the past. As Paul points out they were 3:1 a year before and there's suggestions that prior to the self denying ordinance, Essex was starting to equip at 6:1 (again from Martin Maroc Evens, I've not seen this anywhere else yet).

Also it's mentioned that the Royalists tended to be short on pikes without the resupply that Parliament could raise. This would imply pikes are far more likely to be lost in battle than muskets (makes a lot of sense really as it would be the first thing to drop in a close clash or when running away) so the fact that the musket ratio of the resupply is nearly 3:1, and assuming there's probably already more musket than pike in stores (though that is supposition) it does seem musket heavy is more likely, in 3:1 or 4:1 potentially.

There's also later notes of the NMA being sent to Flanders and having to add more pikes in to match European mainland conventions of higher pike ratios.

So that is leaning me towards treating as shot heavy.

Armour seems to have mostly fallen out of use by the late war as it wasn't particularly useful anymore. So not sure that's particularly telling either way.

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

This link might help :-

http://www.olivercromwell.org/wordpress/?page_id=1570

[mollinary]

Just to complicate matters for you, the following supports the concept that NMA was formed with, and retained, a 2:1 ratio. Source Keith Roberts: Cromwell's War machine. the New Model Army 1645-60.  Page 127. He describes the ratio of two muskets to one pike, and supports it with a reference to the second edition of Richard Elton's the Compleat Body of the Art Military, written by him when an officer in the NMA (the reference was in an appendix not in the earlier edition) 'the plain way of exercising a Company, as usually is practised in the Army, our companies consisting of one hundred men, two parts being musketeer, and a third pikes'. It refers to footnote 65.

Secondly, on page143 there is a diagram showing the deployment of Rainsborough's regiment for its march through London in 1647. It shows five blocks of pikes, each of 10 files, and eight blocks of musketeers, four of 12 files and four of 13 files.

[mmcv]

Thanks Ian, lots on Cromwell there but not seeing much about NMA organisation.

I read somewhere, can't recall where now, that by late war they'd found a musket butt as, if not more effective as a pike against horse once the initial charge was over and it degenerated into the melee.

Just to complicate matters for you, the following supports the concept that NMA was formed with, and retained, a 2:1 ratio. Source Keith Roberts: Cromwell's War machine. the New Model Army 1645-60.  Page 127. He describes the ratio of two muskets to one pike, and supports it with a reference to the second edition of Richard Elton's the Compleat Body of the Art Military, written by him when an officer in the NMA (the reference was in an appendix not in the earlier edition) 'the plain way of exercising a Company, as usually is practised in the Army, our companies consisting of one hundred men, two parts being musketeer, and a third pikes'. It refers to footnote 65.

Secondly, on page143 there is a diagram showing the deployment of Rainsborough's regiment for its march through London in 1647. It shows five blocks of pikes, each of 10 files, and eight blocks of musketeers, four of 12 files and four of 13 files.

You make a convincing argument. Great resource by the way, hadn't encountered that one before but having a flick through looks to have some good information. Will have to read further.

I did see it mentions increasing the proportion of muskets in Ireland, which would suggest the more standard proportion of 2:1 was being used elsewhere.

I think I'll definitely start rebasing the Royalists first, they're a little more straightforward, as have fairly clear idea on their proportions.

I'm now back to leaning towards 2:1 for NMA again....thanks Mollers... 😅

[DecemDave]

The only other detailed factual reference I have found in my books so far is early war and is Langhams regiment in 1642 which was 711 Muskets and 374 Pike . So ho ho to the 1:1 "norm" at the start of the ECW.   I am a bit nervous in case this  "proportion gradually declined" while logical is based on received and repeated wisdom rather than factual research.  Given that many  battles seem to have been decided by the cavalry (or absence of) , a better assumption is that the NMA founders knew their trade (by then!) and thought having a third of Pike around would be useful. 

Can you share the source for that Flanders reference?

The other consideration is what would it look like on the table.  My armies are early war and while most are 2:1 ish I have some almost
1:1 if you count the command in front of the pikes as pikes.  I think at 4:1 , the pike would look a bit unimpressive.

Anyway, you have enough references to support your original decision or to go 3:1 if you want.  You could always put an extra rank of pike on a separate 40*10 and take it away if your opponent only reads Ospreys.   

[mmcv]

I'm likely to be playing solo initially and providing both sides regardless so not too worried about opponents, just want to get the right feel.

You can see some of my experiments in rebasing here:

http://www.pendrakenforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,19799.msg323590.html#msg323590

Which I think looks okay with the lower pike count as it keeps a high density.

My original attempts that I'm rebasing from are mostly here: https://mmcvhistoryhome.wordpress.com/2019/07/13/english-civil-war-progress-update.

But I'm reducing the figures count slightly and moving to single bases so rethinking things a bit. For some reason I'd originally thought the Royalists were mostly pike heavy (no idea where I'd read that) but reading since has indicated more accurate proportions with more shot heavy units.

The Flanders reference I've not been able to find again, sorry been jumping between a few different books and articles and can't find the one it was in, was just a passing comment though thinking on it it may have suggested a 1:1 for Europe. If/when I see it again I'll share.

[DecemDave]

Thanks for raising this.  I've had a fun morning revisiting my beliefs and references. 

I've now skimmed through the Osprey by Martin Marix Evans and I can see where the 4:1 comes from (p31) for the Royalists.  Although the author is clear that this is a "perhaps".  [without saying why]  But later there is a quote (with no specific reference) to Pallas Armata by Sir James Turner about how the musket proportion grew over time. 

Luckily Pallas Armata by Turner  (written in 1670 and dedicated to King James - so I would submit he had to be careful about using Parliamentary exemplars) is available online through Google Books. 
https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Pallas_Armata_Military_Essayes_of_the_An.html?id=0m9nAAAAcAAJ&redir_esc=y 

So I had a quick look.  The book is comparing "modern" military practice to  that of the Greeks, Romans with some asides to more recent armies including Europeans.  But the full context (Chapter XI  around pages 214 ) is clearer that he is referring to the (even then historical) move from 2Pike to 1 Musket to 2 Musket to 1 Pike, not from 2M:1P to higher. Even more interesting, he spends an entire chapter demolishing another author who was proposing eliminating pikes entirely.  I've bookmarked this for a longer read later.   

I'd say  2:1 stays good and maybe this helps explain why the King's pike-light Royalist foot couldn't withstand Cromwells well controlled Horse for long. 

A Pike, A Pike, My Kingdom for a Pike......

[DecemDave]

Just looked at the examples.  Both versions look great.  The density and the flag bearers certainly help the Pikes in the new .

I think I may have followed your original basing when I first started. So thanks for the inspiration. 

I've ended up with 125*45 sabot bases to move all the little bases in practice and, following other forum threads, am now pondering a switch to a more scenic figure light 80mm wide single stand or even 120mm and pack in more figures.   I'll probably be best leaving it alone.  Other lead piles are calling and a deluge of Peninsular Napoleonics are due in the summer.   

[mmcv]

Great find, thanks for sharing.

Yeah I was inspired by paulr and d_guy and their great work. The sabots work great and allows a lot of flexibility. I've just been doing a lot of smaller single base stuff lately so I was at the point of decision between sabot making and rebasing and rebasing seemed the better option as well as allowing me to reduce the figure count a bit so fielding more units. The smaller size let's me field bigger battles long term. Ironically enough now that I've moved house I've the space to field bigger battles on wider frontages again but finding the hobby time to make lots of big bases along with all the other projects I've going on is hard. The only formations that are really relevant to the period are line and column so plan to make some marching markers just to mark column and keep to single bases. I'll probably keep single bases for all ancients to early modern and just multi base for late 18th and beyond where formations are more variable.

Here's my "working list" of naseby for FK&P, still in progress on the full list.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/16ok4Z7ibCbtZDBU_oRL1FzRvJxs-ikC8/view?usp=drivesdk

I also recently got the scenario book for Twilight of Divine Right which rates them as Musket Heavy. But that's easily tweakable as it's scenario rather than points based anyway. Equally FK&P rates all proportions the same point cost so no harm there.

[mmcv]

Actually being silly, Twilight lists them as 2:1 as well (their definition of musket heavy is slightly different so got wires crossed).

I suspect my original decision to do NMA 2:1 was the right one so may continue as that.