RFCM

I've put a few explanatory notes with them. It was a bit rainy but me and my friend enjoyed ourselves.

Here's my attempt at posting some pictures from Towton.

In the first picture you need to visualise the Lancastrians advancing down that slope and almost pushing the Yorkists back over a ridge to the Yorkist rear (not in shot obviously). If they had managed to push the Yorkists onto the downslope of that ridge the battle would no doubt have been over.

The second and third pictures follow the line of the Lancastrian rout.

The bridge of bodies that the chroniclers refer to is most likely somewhere in the fourth picture but it's hard to be exact about precisely where.

The last picture is Dacre's Cross. The date on the plinth is a day before the battle, one can only assume it takes into account the Battle of Ferrybridge, probably fought on the 28th of March 1461 though some believe it was fought on the same day as Towton.

I'll try Martin. I'm not a super whizz with a smart phone but I'll take some pictures and see if I can figure out how to post a few of the best ones here.

Yeah Tewkesbury is a real good one to visit. I think the banners are posted either during the mediaeval festival they have or possibly throughout the summer I'm not sure. A Yorkist victory too!

Living in York I am lucky as we have Towton and Marston Moor pretty much on our doorsteps. There is now a battlefield walk at Towton and me and my friend, who is a fellow wargamer, are going to to walk it on Wednesday. We will be following the social distancing rules of course though I've already had covid-19 and pretty unpleasant it was too.

Having been to Tewkesbury a few years ago I would really recommend a visit. When I was there the shops in the town centre had each chosen a different participant in the battle and put his banner up. It looked spectacular. It's a nice battlefield to walk around  too and the abbey is beautiful.

A massive over emphasis on the gunpowder weapons but not so much time spent on the other troops or their tactics.

I can't recall any battle diagrams showing who was deployed where. Admittedly we don't know for sure but Oxford and Norfolk facing off against each other, Richard with the reserves and Northumberland on the Yorkist left possibly unable to advance because of the marsh and/or the threat of the Stanleys hovering on the Yorkist left flank seems about right.

I thought it was OK. I wasn't aware the budget was so small so I suppose a decent effort under the circumstances. All but one (see below) of the series told me nothing I didn't already know but when you've been wargaming nearly 40 years that's to be expected, these things aren't made for wargamers, they are just trying to give an overview to the "layman".

Why on earth they picked Kett's Revolt (yes, really?) for the last one is beyond me. An obscure revolt against Edward VI with no chance of dethroning him. I can only assume budget constraints. I'd have thought Sedgemoor or Culloden would have been much better choices.

Yes you're right, it is a matter of opinion. It can't be beyond the wit of man to come up with a house rule specifically for Bosworth if, like myself, you believe there is a cavalry action there. Equally its perfectly feasible to play the scenario as written if you take Martin's view of things.

I don't actually think the rules suffer from having no cavalry vs cavalry rules. It would involve tinkering with the whole mechanism and for what? One battle where the definition of "cavalry battle" is disputed? It doesn't seem worth it really.

What I would need for my own and Kendall et al's interpretation is some mechanism whereby assuming the Yorkist knights do not kill Henry they do not disappear from the table for one move, they then fight it out with Stanley's cavalry. If the Yorkists survive they withdraw from the table and Richard survives, the battle continues. Stanley's cavalry could withdraw too as per the rules. Should the Yorkists lose, Richard is killed and the game is over. All that assumes the battle plays out according to history, at least the history that we have been given.

I don't think that is unachievable if careful thought is given to game balance. Hit in flank by a mass of Cheshire horsemen Richard should lose but I want to give him a chance or what's the point in playing?

No problem. Nice to discuss it with you.

Hello Martin

I take your point but whilst we are not talking Scots Greys versus Napoleon's lancers at Waterloo I think it certainly is a clash with a fair number of cavalry, we can't know for sure but I would guestimate about 80 in Tudor's bodyguard and 250 Yorkist knights, esquires, Knights of the Body etc.

Not really sure what your getting at re Blore Heath. That's not a cavalry battle, it's Lancastrian knights charging prepared infantry and losing badly.

Kendall didn't get Bosworth in the "wrong" place as in he made an error of judgement, he put it in the place where everyone else put it at the time. Nobody had heard of battlefield archaeology. It's the same as somebody in 500 years saying "hey those guys in 2020 didn't know how to travel faster than light therefore all their science must have been wrong." One doesn't necessarily follow the other.

As I said the location moved but the disposition, movements and numbers of troops recorded at the time didn't. I see no difficultly in transposing his version to Fenn Lane. I'd be very loathe to throw out older research just because we think we know better. Kendall's a very scholarly work, well worth a read.

The basics remain the same. Oxford fights Norfolk in a clash of the vanguards and comes off best. Northumberland doesn't move. Richard sees a chance to end it by killing Henry, charges at him, almost kills him but fails and the Stanley's smash into his flank. Richard now fighting against the Stanleys and probably Henry's Welsh as well is separated from his men, driven into the marsh, unhorsed and killed. That can happen at Ambion Hill or Fenn Lane equally well IMO.

We can play around with numbers, troop varieties, positions (I'd put Lord Stanley behind Sir William and possibly place Gilbert Talbot on Oxford's right flank with a small flank guard) but we will never get a definitive answer, battlefield archaeology can only tell us so much and eventually we have to come back to Polydore Vergil etc. Literally your educated logical "guess" is as good as mine. Nevertheless I do feel Richard vs Henry was a cavalry fight and that the Stanleys are most likely to have used the fast moving Cheshire horsemen (described as having red coats at the battle in one source) to slam into Richard's left flank first then follow up with infantry whose pole weapons would be very effective against pinned knights.

I thought the visitors centre was ok, the knight in white armour like a Stars Wars stormtrooper let it down somewhat. It just looked silly. Richard should have been buried in York Minster in my view rather than in a city that "lost" him for 500 years then saw a chance for a quick buck by playing finders keepers. He wanted to build a chantry chapel in York Minster for the repose of his soul, his intent to be buried in York where his son was invested as Prince of Wales was clear enough but that's another story and in Leicester he should stay now. You can't go around disturbing the dead.

I use a variety of sources, they often say different things of course but the Lance and Longbow guys are pretty good. Andrew Boardman is excellent too.

Best wishes
Alan

Quote from: martin goddard on May 16, 2020, 01:48:50 PM
There was no major cavalry on cavalry clash at Bosworth.

Richard with a mass of cavalry (hundreds) "went" for Henry's mounted bodyguard.
Henry was mounted because he was not a part of the battle line.
It was very rare indeed for a general to command a battle by sitting behind the lines on a horse.


In BB, Henry's bodyguard would be 2 bases maximum. Not a major cavalry clash at all.
There is no mention of Stanleys being a mounted force (where on earth did that come from?).
Horses for mounted charges were in the low numbers.
These were not cavalry armies by any stretch of the imagination.

Commanders normally led their troops on foot.
In rare cases they formed up men for a  mounted charge.
In fact it is thought that Welsh infantry were the first on the scene, butchering Richard's standard bearer nastily.


martin

Hi Martin

I think for the period it IS quite a major cavalry punch up. There's hundreds of cavalry involved. Tudor's bodyguard wasn't big that's for sure but it was certainly big enough to blunt the charge of hundreds of Yorkist knights. That Tudor had a bodyguard of 80 men tops seems to be the consensus but add that to Richard's numbers and it's not a skirmish.

Source, amongst others including a publication from the Visitors Centre; Paul Murray Kendall "Richard III" chapter on Bosworth Field, appendix note 5.

NB the battle has moved its location since Kendall wrote what is still regarded as the definitive work on Richard but the accounts of it haven't changed and neither has what we know about the composition of the forces.

Cheers, it's always good to discuss Wars of the Roses stuff.

There was one major cavalry clash. Good King Richard's mounted knights attacked Henry Tudor's bodyguard at Bosworth. We know the bodyguard was mounted as Richard is recorded as unhorsing one of them. Stanley's charge was mounted too I'm sure otherwise Richard's knights would have either ridden it down or pulled back rather than being overwhelmed as they actually were.

The rules as they stand would need some kind of house amendment to reflect this if you want to refight Bosworth and I'd be curious to hear any suggestions but I don't see it as a massive inherent flaw in BB. I haven't played them yet but I liked what I read.

Quote from: John Watson on May 12, 2020, 10:28:46 PM
For an accessible entry into battlefield archaeology the BBC programmes "Two Men In A Trench" by Tony Pollard and Neil Oliver are worth a look. Over two series there were 10 shows (I think). There are also books on the series.
John

Yes that was good, I remember that. Certainly a lot better than the current offering from Channel 5; Britain's Lost Battlefields which seemed to spend more time on what the Anglo Saxons ate during a lull in the fighting at Hastings than on the actual battle itself. I've recorded the latest one on Bosworth, let's see if that's any better.

Speaking of "accessible entry" I was mulling over what book to recommend to anyone looking to get into the period. I'd go for the Osprey book by Terry Wise "The Wars of the Roses". It barely covers Stoke Field and its description of Bosworth is of course out of date now but other than that it gives a good overview of all the major battles with clear maps and an easy to read commentary that explains what was going on and why the armies were there. It also has a section that covers livery colours and badges though I will admit the Lance and Longbow Society booklets are more accurate. It's an easy read that will enable someone to get to grips with the basics of the period without getting a headache. Sure, it doesn't explain things like why is the Duke of Somerset killed three times? (He isn't of course, it's the father killed at first St Albans, his heir killed after Hexham and a younger brother who then took the title killed at Tewkesbury) but  I think most wargamers would realise that and not worry too much about who inherits from who and instead focus on the battles and which Lord used which livery and which badge.

Hi Martin

Having been there (there's a really grim pub nearby which my late wife was not too impressed with, she couldn't get out of there fast enough) I'm inclined to believe the Terry Wise version of the battle which is pretty much what I quoted above. I have never read a version where the Yorkist left is defeated and comes back to fight again and win. You pays your money and takes your choice but it seems fairly evident that one wing of the Lancastrian army won, the other wing tried a flanking move and lost. Which wing won and which wing lost is admittedly debatable. I'm not sure the Tudors though would put Butler, a man with a reputation for running away and his hirelings in the vanguard. More likely they would be in the rear Ward which is the left. One can't help but wonder if the reason they stopped fighting was that Butler had taken to his heels again.

Bosworth is a tricky one. Yes the Ambion Hill theory is totally out of date now but the current authors do seem quite difficult to pin down about who deployed where. I've seen theories and indeed wargame displays that have Henry and indeed the Stanleys in various positions. My own view on that and it is a personal view only is that Oxford faces off against Norfolk, Henry sits just behind Oxford with his bodyguard, good King Richard is in the Yorkist centre with his cavalry reserve and to his left is Northumberland who cannot get into battle because of the marsh in front of him. The Stanleys sit on the left flank of the King's army.

I looked at the Graham Evans book but I must admit I didn't buy it because if I'm being frank it seemed quite expensive for what it was. That was on the Lance and Longbow stall at the York show if I recall correctly. I'm a member of the York club. I wish I'd bought it now as Edgecote is a fascinating battle. I believe Graham does participation and re fight games of Edgecote, I've seen what I think is his blog and it does look very interesting.

You're right research always has the possibility of changing the way we view certain battles. We can't be too dogmatic about things that happened 500 years ago, then again at some point we have to say the X, Y or Z is probably what happened on the balance of probabilities otherwise we would never end up re fighting anything.

Of course it's not for me to tell anyone what to read but I've always found the Andrew Boardman books on First St Albans and Towton to be good sources. The Osprey books on Towton and Tewkesbury are pretty good, the Bosworth Osprey is out of date now due to the new research. Paul Murray Kendall's book on Warwick has stood the test of time as has his book about Richard III if you disregard the bit about Bosworth. As he passed away in 1973 he could not possibly have known about the updated location. David Santiuste's Edward IV and the Wars of the Roses is worth a look and Nathen Amin's The House of Beaufort has filled in a gap as there seems to have been very little written before now about the Dukes of Somerset other than they usually turned up and lost. They've always been "cardboard characters" previously.

I've really enjoyed reading the rules. People here have clarified one or two queries for me which I'm very grateful for. Can't wait to try them. I have big armies of Yorkists and Lancastrians in 28mm all ready to go when this wretched lockdown finishes. As I said when I joined I'm an old Peter Pig hand. I've been playing Bayonet and Ideology for over a decade now. Between us at the York club we can do any faction of the Spanish Civil War. I have Anarchists and Falange, all 15mm Peter Pig of course. Viva la Republica!!

Regards
Alan

Looking great. You appear to have solved what were, for me, the two main issues with 6mm. Firstly getting the flags and secondly my eyes being drawn to the base rather than the figures because the troops are so small. All three sets of pictures look very good.

I'm just getting into the BB battle descriptions now. One or two don't match up entirely with the books I have and I have a lot and I do mean a LOT!! It's the internet so it's hard to put this across in the positive and helpful way I intend, nobody likes a "know all", especially one who hasn't been on the forum long so I'll apologise in advance if I offend anyone but the Mortimer's Cross battle description just looks wrong.

It was the Lancastrian left that initially charged and pushed back the Yorkist right at Mortimers Cross.

The BB description has the Lancastrian right winning against the Yorkist left, regrouping, trying an outflanking move and losing to the already defeated Yorkist left! There wasn't two separate fights in that part of the battlefield as far as I'm aware. Read on in the BB description a little more and the author has the Lancastrian left regrouping. From what? They haven't done anything yet.

What appears to have happened in 1461 is Lancastrian LEFT beats Yorkist RIGHT. The centres come to blows with the Yorkists coming out on top. Seeing this the victorious Lancastrian LEFT sits down to await developments. Finally the Lancastrian RIGHT tries an outflanking move, bungles it by exposing their own flank and gets routed by the Yorkist LEFT. At that point the Lancastrian army runs away.

Like I said I'm not trying to be "clever", I'm just trying to be helpful. Hope you don't mind.

Thanks again Nick.