This week I put together some card bases using MS paint and figures from the Junior General site that didn't come out too badly for a test run of the V&B Jacobite wing scale rules.
I chose Prestonpans as both Falkirk and Colloden have a lot more units involved.
Last night we fought two games - the first one, using the historical deployment was pretty much a re-run of the actual battle with the Highland infantry sweeping over the Government forces like a tsunami (sorry Paul :-[)
After a cuppa and Easter eggs ;D to restore the ol' sugar levels we played another game using free deployment which worked a lot better for the Government forces. The dragoons just kept on having a bad day :( but the infantry, having stationary bonus's, came within 1 point of breaking at least one of the Highland commands.
Overall the system worked well, and with better and more variety of troops becoming available after Prestonpans on both sides it appears that I/we will be pursuing this project further and committing to figures rather than card bases (though i have some other things to do first).
Dragoons are human sacrifices, aren't they? Always get wiped out after bravely securing an advanced position which turns out to have no effect on the battle, or trying to nibble a bit at the enemy flank (and losing more than they inflict).
The first game was not a lot of fun ;D
The second was more interesting but having to charge with Dragoons that stood a 50% chance of routing before contact was "interesting" to say the least :D
Definitely a period that shows promise and plays differently than Napoleonics or AWI using Volley & Bayonet
The highlight of the evening was watching the three Jacobite commanders, who all have Scottish heritage, arguing before the game had even begun ;) ;D
Sounds a lot of fun! :)
Quote from: paulr on 20 March 2016, 04:12:44 AM
The highlight of the evening was watching the three Jacobite commanders, who all have Scottish heritage, arguing before the game had even begun ;) ;D
That's taking historical accuracy a little far!
Glad the games went well, even if pre-battle planning may not have! :)
After our Prestonpans games a couple of weeks ago we had a bit of chat and decided to try a second scenario with better Government Infantry to see if they can handle the "highland charge".
So tonight its off to Falkirk to see what happens - historically it was fought late in the afternoon in the middle of a rainstorm which greatly aided the Jacobite attack.
For our game its been agreed that the weather will be fine (though conversely its actually raining steadily here in Welliington today for the first time in weeks :o ) and we are using the historic setup.
I have the Government artillery stands if they are required as well :-\
Going to be a webel and take command of the Jacobite second line as my family are connected to the Gordons and Ogilvies who had a brigade present at Falkirk :ar!
Hope Roy's got some good single malt hidden away somewhere - might need one (or two....) ;)
Will be interested to hear (and if possible?) see the results! Good luck!
When you consider that the government forces almost broke the highland charge at Killiecrankie with fire power, the odds may be against you at Falkirk. Particularly without the element of surprise (as at Prestonpans) or the rain to diminish the Government 2nd and following volleys.
Was it before or after Falkirk that the government changed thier bayonet doctrine to lunging to protect the man on left? If after - if you close - you win! An Gordanach!
Sorry, protecting the man on the right! :-[
Have you seen the old 1960s BBC production of Culloden? It was done as if a TV crew and reporters were at the scene. I always remember the reporter saying, "This is grapeshot; and this is what it does." It also showed the British infantry protecting the man on the right.
The change in bayonet drill is usually attribute to Cumberland and so it would be after Falkirk. But Duffy in his new book says there is no evidence that Cumberland actually changed anything with the drill. So either they never did the 'protect the man on the right' ting or they had always done this, he doesn't know. The key thing was Cumberland got the men to stand and use whatever drill they used, rather than just run.
I got the impression it was because the charging highlanders' left sides were partially protected by the targe, but the right was vulnerable with the arm raised holding the sword.
Yes that was certainly the theory and presumably it would work. But Duffy says it was either used or not used at ALL the battles and not just Culloden. Duffy points to the redcoats standing firm and the highlanders throwing away their targes to being important at Culloden. Duffy's new 'Fight for the Throne' book is very good.
I'm with Duffy, I never really bought the 'ignore the hairy arsed highlander to your front, expose your left and thrust to your right' myth, not credible, more an afterthought to 'big up' a victory over a half starved, undermanned, exhausted, demoralised enemy, attacking over too big a distance, over rough ground, in the face of volley fire and canister. Where the distance was shorter they charged home and broke the line ... unfortunately there was a second line.
Yes your probably right. Had I been a lowland Scot I'd have gone for the hairy arsed, uncivilised northerner to my front, especially if he was daft enough to chuck his targe away.
Quote from: Hwiccee on 02 April 2016, 10:50:11 AM
Yes that was certainly the theory and presumably it would work. But Duffy says it was either used or not used at ALL the battles and not just Culloden. Duffy points to the redcoats standing firm and the highlanders throwing away their targes to being important at Culloden. Duffy's new 'Fight for the Throne' book is very good.
Everything Duffy writes is good, I find.
Why did they throw their targes away? Did they have more muskets than popular myth / history would lead us to believe?
I cannot remember the source - it may even have been me who quoted it in another thread (from The Last Highlander - about Lord Lovat?) - but I'm sure there was something somewhere about so many thousand muskets (more than the whole Jacobite Army) being found by Govt. troops immediately after and in the subsequent months after Culloden.
The targes were heavy so they were usually left on carts until just before the battle and then taken up. But at Culloden they did a night march and left the baggage behind. So 2 sources mention that most had been ditched by the time of the battle.
Duffy says muskets were short at first and on the march into England. But by the time they got back to Scotland most/all would have them.
Quote from: Leman on 02 April 2016, 07:41:32 AM
Have you seen the old 1960s BBC production of Culloden? It was done as if a TV crew and reporters were at the scene. I always remember the reporter saying, "This is grapeshot; and this is what it does." It also showed the British infantry protecting the man on the right.
Yes! And remember it vividly - need to see if I can find on YouTube. The change in bayonet thrust was described in detail so that is my impression I'm sure. I believe that BBC production was based on Prebble's book of the same name but in a quick review did not find it specifically addressed (although the discription of Barrell's foot have every bayonet bloody and bent)
An inventory of weapons captured (not clear that all were from the field) - E. Andrew Mobrays edited and annotated edition of Lord Archibald Cabell's Scottish Swords...at Culloden - has 2320 muskets and 190 broadswords (for which Cumberland had offered a one shilling bounty)
Puzzling numbers.
Blackmore's Destructive and Formidable does offer not only the firing pattern used but specific use of the bayonet ordered by Cumberland which involved changing from a right facing trust to a left facing thrust (to the front however) to take the unprotected side of the opponent.
Cumberland heavily drilled his men and is no doubt responsible for instilling the neccessary discipline against a highland charge.
Personally I would have (as a song about Prestonpans relates) filled my breeks and run all the way to Aberdeen!
Incidently I have not spread Duffy's book - sounds like it is recommended?
Should I live long enough I may get to the '45 for wargaming - but after FPW - which I just started! :)
d_Guy,
This is the Duffy book - http://www.amazon.com/Fight-Throne-Jacobite-45-Reconsidered/dp/1910777056/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1459607765&sr=1-1&keywords=fight+for+the+throne (http://www.amazon.com/Fight-Throne-Jacobite-45-Reconsidered/dp/1910777056/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1459607765&sr=1-1&keywords=fight+for+the+throne)
I am sure others will also sell it. I am also sure many, including myself, would agree with FierceKitty that pretty much everything by Duffy is good. Some of it now is getting a little dated but the above book is a few months old.
I am afraid I am not a fan of Blackmore's Destructive and Formidable and I would be wary of relying on it. Duffy says the Government troops abandoned platoon firing at Falkirk and switched to rank firing or volleys. I don't know about this against the highlanders but that makes sense based on similar examples. As you say Cumberland drilled his men hard and this did the trick.
Thanks Hwiccee!
I live pretty much in a wargaming vacuum and miss out on regular play and detailed discussions with other gamers. You may know I am primarily interested in pre-1700 (1590-1695) warfare on the Celtic Fringe - difficult to figure out precisely how, in many cases, the fighting was conducted and the specific weaponry - long on myth and legend - short on hard data - and many passionate opinions. For me at least it is a lot of guess work!
Would enjoy sitting down and discussing Blackmore over a beer or three! He did give the firing pattern at Culloden as by rank with kneeling front rank (and flank companies) reserving fire until point blank.
Have just order Duffy.
Well we got to play the game twice last night.....the second result was better than the first for the Jacobite cause 8)
The first game was over pretty fast - the stationary fire of the better government infantry and (purhaps) the impetuousness of one of the Jacobite commanders ;) meant the first game was over pretty quickly since Lord George Murray's command was shattered early one (guess I shouldn't have gone into that ravine after all :-[ ).
The second game was quite different - we kept the same sides but this time the Jacobites decided to manuvere their units more before charging on the right flank, though the Government troops on the left flank got reasonably aggressive and roughed up the Gordon brigade badly, collapsing it. In the middle and one the right things went well for the Jacobites, the Jacobite cavalry managed a couple of breakthroughs against disordered Government infantry after they had been pushed back by Paul's (Lord Perth's command) Highlanders.
That was enough to give the Jacobites enough of an advantage to claim the victory in the end.
So am I going commit to doing this in 10mm metal?- not entirely sure...watch this space as I have other projects going too and only so much of a budget.
Watched Culloden on You Tube yesterday, and it is still pretty impressive, and in some respects better than some more modern offerings. Charles Stuart came across as not so much Bonnie but rather N**head Prince Charlie. A positive outcome appears to have been the populating of Canada and Australia.
Thanks for the battle reports Pierre - one for two - not too horrible.
Earlier Scots thumped the English today, but it needed some lucky dice. If my artillery hadn't knocked out their C-in-C and paralysed their outflanking move, it would had been the last haggis for Leslie.
Quote from: d_Guy on 02 April 2016, 03:19:26 PM
Thanks Hwiccee!
I live pretty much in a wargaming vacuum and miss out on regular play and detailed discussions with other gamers. You may know I am primarily interested in pre-1700 (1590-1695) warfare on the Celtic Fringe - difficult to figure out precisely how, in many cases, the fighting was conducted and the specific weaponry - long on myth and legend - short on hard data - and many passionate opinions. For me at least it is a lot of guess work!
Would enjoy sitting down and discussing Blackmore over a beer or three! He did give the firing pattern at Culloden as by rank with kneeling front rank (and flank companies) reserving fire until point blank.
Have just order Duffy.
Sorry for the delay in replying - life got in the way :(
I had not heard of your interest in the Celtic Fringe but I did track down and bookmark your excellent blog - http://inredcoatragsattired.com/ if like me you didn't know it. My gaming group played a lot of Scottish/Irish ECW battles a while back. One of the group has written a forthcoming (or at least I think they are) 'Celtic Fringe' supplement to a popular ECW set. The rules are terrible but the games were good.
This is a time/area I am also interested in but more secondary for me. Nowadays I am mainly interested in the period 1640 -1770 more generally (i.e. across Europe) & 1680-1720 more specifically. I know what you mean about the difficulty in finding material on the details of combat and I am afraid it doesn't change after 1700 or if you start looking at the wider world. This brings me to Blackmore. I think he has clearly looked at the period English/British drills and regulations. He is very good at detailing them if you don't have time to do so yourself or access to them. But he relies on less than reliable older secondary sources for much of the rest, including other details on the English/British. So often supporting information on the English/British is weak but when you look at the arguments he makes about effectiveness, etc, then he is extremely weak. Maybe his ideas are right, although I don't think so, but as he uses very few non English sources it is impossible to tell. So while the details of the various drills are good much of the rest is just a re-hash of older very unreliable information.
Duffy - Good, I hope you enjoy the book when it comes.
You guys are talking about the Peter Watkin's film. You should also take a look at his La Commune (7 hours). That is one weird but interesting director. He had it on youtube.
Hey Hwiccee, thanks for the comments about the blog and sharing the interests of you and your wargaming group!
Your comments on Blackmore's sourcing are useful and give me some much needed correction in understanding his presentation.
I use some primary sourcing but even with remote access to a couple of different university libraries, hard to find specialized material. I rely on Stuart Reid for a general overview of warfare in Scotland but he may overstate the use of Musket&Pike for forces raised outside of the lowlands.
Ireland is its own kettle of fish. Being a linear thinker I may eventually catch up to your more modern era. :)
Likely you already know these but a couple other books I've found useful (1640 - 1650) are
Peter Edwards "The Arms Trade and the British Civil Wars" and
David Lawrence "The Military Books and Military Culture in Early Suart England" although it sounds like you have wandered through the primary sources for this already.
Quote from: d_Guy on 08 April 2016, 08:38:53 PM
I use some primary sourcing but even with remote access to a couple of different university libraries, hard to find specialized material. I rely on Stuart Reid for a general overview of warfare in Scotland but he may overstate the use of Musket&Pike for forces raised outside of the lowlands.
Hi d Guy
Having thought about my two test games I'm looking at potentially doing Scots ECW 1644/45 using V&B wing scale rather than Jacobites - still get plenty of highlanders and Gordons 8)
There are quite a few parallels between the events of 1645 and 1745 - e.g. the site of Montrose's victory at Auldearn is only some 10 miles from Colloden.
I have had a long interest in the period (never actually gamed it through) and have several of Reid's books - are you saying that you feel that his assertion that units like the Strahbogie Regt would be organised as a "conventional" pike and muisket unit is incorrect? Should they be treated more as "redshanks" highlanders?
Earlier in his campaign at Aberdeen Montrose was joined by Lord Kilpont with 500 "bowmen" - do you think that the majority would be armed with bows or are there only some still so armed when the clan mustered? there seems to have been a lack of firearms amongst the highland clans at this time according to some sources so bows, sword and targe and Jedbourgh staves were the main weapons used?
Quote from: pierre the shy on 09 April 2016, 02:30:19 AM
Hi d Guy
Having thought about my two test games I'm looking at potentially doing Scots ECW 1644/45 using V&B wing scale rather than Jacobites - still get plenty of highlanders and Gordons 8)
There are quite a few parallels between the events of 1645 and 1745 - e.g. the site of Montrose's victory at Auldearn is only some 10 miles from Colloden.
I have had a long interest in the period (never actually gamed it through) and have several of Reid's books - are you saying that you feel that his assertion that units like the Strahbogie Regt would be organised as a "conventional" pike and muisket unit is incorrect? Should they be treated more as "redshanks" highlanders?
The Gordon (Huntley's) foot (Strathbogie, Strathaven, and Strathdee) I am - at the moment (Fyvie) - portraying as M&P with no warrior element. Since they were involved in the Bishops Wars and were armed (in part) by the King - this seems justified.
A unit like Inchbrakie (Atholl Highlanders) - at the moment (Fyvie) - are more highland warrior like but with a musket component. These were the fellows who were throwing rocks at Tippermuir but certainly had the opportunity to aquire muskets from the field.
So far this accords with Reid I think. It is on the Covenanter side that I think there were somewhat fewer M&P
My rule of thumb (and it may prove to be wrong) is that the further from major cities the more poorly armed the unit (which affects the Covenanter side the most). With both a field army in England and Ulster - the Covenanters were pretty much down to city militias and Fencibles for home defense. The militias are well armed (M&P) - for example Aberdeen - and the Fencibles variablely so (if they showed up at all) - I have them as mainly M&P but with part of each unit with improvised weapons.
Quote
Earlier in his campaign at Aberdeen Montrose was joined by Lord Kilpont with 500 "bowmen" - do you think that the majority would be armed with bows or are there only some still so armed when the clan mustered? there seems to have been a lack of firearms amongst the highland clans at this time according to some sources so bows, sword and targe and Jedbourgh staves were the main weapons used?
Kilpont was actually at Tippermuir :). When I did Tippermuir I had Kilpont as commanding the Perthshire militia (M&P) (which had gone over to Montrose) supported by a contingent of MacDonalds of Keppoch with bows (~100). This is Reid's take (regarding the number of bows).
For troops from the Highlands and Islands I have two unit types that get assembled in different ways - a highland warband - the retinue warriors ("Redshanks") with the entire collection of highland weapons and the clan levy with various polearms and improvised weapons.
The grey area (one of several actually) is precisely how highland Shire Fencibles were armed and organized (Seaforth and Sutherland for example) possibly M&P or a mix with warrior types thrown in (the MacKenzies - at Auldearn I think - had some bows).
Incidentally when I say "for the moment" it means the point were I currently am in working through Montrose's campaign. It is a very slow progression as I learn more (or am forced to make up stuff! :))
I don't know if any of this made sense - I would love to find THE book that explains it all!
BTW do you have an opinion about Martain Hackett's "Raise the Clans"?
Thanks for your reply D Guy....of course I meant Tippermuir not Aberdeen ;)
I defer to your knowledge on 1644/45 as beyond the Reid books that I have (and some I'm trying to get back from long lost freind of mine :( ) I don't have any detailed sources on this period.
Your blog has a lot of really useful information on it - cheers for that.
Thanks for the comment about the blog (although a total work in progress as I learn - mess up - and get corrected - a lot :) )
Obviously envy what you, Paul and your group does - if it weren't for the odd eight or nine thousand miles I'd make application to join!
Good gaming!
Hi all,
An interesting conversation but I am afraid I once again have missed a lot and also I am no expert on the Highlanders/Jacobites, I mostly look at standard European warfare of the period, so I can't help that much and most of the rest of this is 'best guess' based on bits I have read.
On the weaponry of the ECW era generally I think that the leaders, and presumably the rank and file also, wanted everyone to be armed with M&P and fight in the 'modern' way - i.e. using similar tactics to those used at the time in the rest of Britain and Europe. So I would expect there to be a big effort to equip even units like the highland fencibles with modern weapons which were generally cheap and readily available, especially to a fairly efficient state organisation. I don't imagine everyone would necessarily have such weapons but I would guess that the unit as a whole would act like a standard unit. Those people armed with 'old fashioned' weapons would join the muskets/pikes and fight like them. So from a gaming point of view I am not sure such a unit would fight as anything different than a standard ECW type unit.
On Kilpont's archers the same seems to have been true but with a twist. I read somewhere that these did have a larger than normal number of bows but the unit actually fought as a standard highland unit - i.e. lots of sword action and very little actual use of the bow. So again from a gaming point of view I am not sure that I would rate them as any different from a standard highland unit.
In the later Jacobite rebellions it was still common for the leaders to want the units to fight as standard units of the time but they often had to rely on 'traditional' tactics. In these campaigns the highlanders often had plenty of 'modern' weapons but still fought with 'traditional' tactics. But this does beg the question 'what were the traditional tactics and where did they come from?' Duffy, Singleton (I think d-Guy you have his booklet) and possibly others think that the origin of what was considered 'traditional' highland tactics in the rebellions was at core actually aggressive Swedish tactics from the later TYW. The idea seems to be that these were introduced by Montrose's Irish troops and then over time became standard 'traditional' highland tactics. They are basically a close range salvo followed by a very aggressive charge. Over the rebellions it was seemingly not that important what you 'fired' in the salvo or how heavy the fire was and similarly it didn't seem to make much difference what you were armed with as you charged in. The key was the tactic and aggressiveness/determination or whatever you want to call it.
Finally on the subject of 'what we know' I thought I would mention a book I like - http://www.amazon.com/Decisive-Battles-English-Civil-War/dp/1783469757 but also available elsewhere. This is a book looking critically at what we actually know about 7 'famous' ECW battles. It is a real eye opener on how much of the 'history' we think we have is open to question, etc. Unfortunately it doesn't cover the actual 'Celtic' battles but it does do Marston Moor and Preston so the Scots feature a little. But what it does do is show how little we actually know about the 'famous' and fairly well documented battles of the ECW. So with relatively minor and poorly documented highland battles you are going to really struggle to get 'the truth'.
I hope this is some help.
Hwiccee,
Enjoyed reading your comments and insights.
I think you are very correct that the leaders (in particular ) wanted every unit armed as M&P.
Certainly Scotland had a substantial officer corps trained in the Swedish TYW armies. The government of Scotland, thanks to the Bishops Wars, was also arguably the best prepared for the wars to come. It seems, but I don't know, that the shire fencibles were the source for much of the initial manpower for the Scottish field armies in England and Ulster. How this effected the remaining fencibles I am not sure, certainly it effected their performance if not how they were armed (and an abundance of amateur field officers didn't help). Still, not convinced that the more rural and highland shires managed to arm all their fencibles as M&P particular with some of the resources being drawn off to support various personal retinues. From a wargaming stand point every unit (short of highland warbands) can be M&P and still provide great games.
Certainly that is the prevailing opinion. I'm trying some different ideas. Also porting everything over to Impetus:Baroque so who knows what's going to come out on the other side :)
When I wargamed Tippermuir I had the archers broken out as a small group of MacDonald of Keppoch (Stuart Reid's opinion) supporting the Perthshire fencibles (M&P) both under Kilpont - true the archers didn't do much but they looked good :)
We could spend hours on the "traditional" tactics of highlanders - certainly the more aggressive Swedish tactics could supply a plausible origin - they certainly had an effect on Prince Rupert! Much is made of MacColla "inventing" the so-called Highland charge at the Battle of Laney (1642) and then bringing it with the Irish Brigade to Scotland. There are, of course, many other origins offered including the tactics of shield and buckler men (Stevenson).
As you probably know, there is an unresolved discussion about how Montrose's Irish Brigade was armed. As you say, aggression/elan is probably the ultimate determiner for the success of the "traditional" tactic.
I do have Wanklyn's book on decisive battles and will need to revisit it. Incidentally have started reading Duffy and find his style quite precise and enjoyable to read. If you have not looked at Edwards http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dealing-Death-Trade-British-Civil/dp/0750914963/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1460394082&sr=8-1&keywords=Dealing+in+death+Edwards a very interesting read and resource - although either shop around for a fourth hand copy or get it from a library! :)
Happily in wargaming, at least, fantasy can often masquerade as "truth" with no harm done - more power to it I say :)