Montrose - Poor troops ?

[switze01]

Hi

Who are the poor troops the montrose army has to have ?

I thought the highlanders were the dross for him

Can you tell me who were the (mandatory) poor foot at
Auldearn ,alford etc....
Certainly they may have existed but why mandatory ?
Like i said i am no way a royalist but this seems unfair.
Steve

[marshalney2000]

Montrose had a number of pike and shot units raised from a number of sources the quality of which was variable. The Covenanters raised units in a similar way and again some were not that motivated.
What logic suggests that every unit raised for Montrose was at least average while Covenanters were usually crap. I'm sorry but Montrose did not have a super army but a rag tag force which was often fortunate enough to run up against an even less motivated enemy.
I am a Scot who likes Montrose but the mythical qualities of Montrose and his troops has moved beyond reality into legend.
John

[ahuyton]

I agree. The description of the Montose army is very negative in tone, I don't know why so pejorative. FoG does not do this so violently for other armies. Alan

[nikgaukroger]

I think John's comment in another post:

The Irish brigade has become the source of more written twaddle of a romantic nature than most other troops in history.

is pertinent, and the tone of the list notes comes from a desire to get away from the mythology and try and find the reality.

[marshalney2000]

I would add that the Covenanters in Scotland have three compulsory units of poor foot while montrose only has one. Montrose got most of his pike and shot units when the Gordons changed sides and I do not believe that this change of sides suddenly made them better. Similar comments applt to the Gordon horse.
Do not prejudge this army because it is not all superior troops. I think you will it is a very effective army. As for the comments in the notes that are deemed negative, my intention was not to denigrate but rather pull it a little more into reality.
At the end of the day, I grew up with Nigel Tranter and John Buchan, it was a bit of a culture shock for me to realise that Montrose was human and must hold the record for being surprised by his opponents. He did have the skill to get out of it other than Philiphaugh when he faced the covenanting veterans rather than the home based units.
John

[SirGarnet]

A BG or two of non-Mob Poor troops make efficient second-line support, valuable for the +1 CT bonus. They can also be stationed to avoid the first line taking the CT and shooting penalties for threatened flank due to being outwinged by enemy mounted.

The Scots with muskets provide the extra bonus that they can shoot through the gap between the first line BGs they are supporting.

Ergo, I think the compulsory poor BG is a plus, not a minus.

Poor troops are better than they were in FOGAM.

[timmy1]

Poor troops are at least 50% better than they are in FoG:AM - more like 100-150% better now that they support Average and Superior are SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much more expensive. I was always going to do Scots Covenanters but they have moved up to second place on my to do list (after Nordlingen Spanish Imperial because I plan to run that as an Intro game at the club).

[mellis1644]

[quote="MikeK"]A BG or two of non-Mob Poor troops make efficient second-line support, valuable for the +1 CT bonus. They can also be stationed to avoid the first line taking the CT and shooting penalties for threatened flank due to being outwinged by enemy mounted.

The Scots with muskets provide the extra bonus that they can shoot through the gap between the first line BGs they are supporting.

Ergo, I think the compulsory poor BG is a plus, not a minus.

[b]Poor troops are better than they were in FOGAM.[/b][/quote]

A second line of poor foot is a very effective use of points as long as you are likely not to need them much. More points for other places in an army, so I could see this becoming popular with pike and shot armies.

[SirGarnet]

Second-line troops remain useful in other kinds of armies, though if melee-only don't contribute to shooting (which is unfortunate, as Poor troops like nothing better than to shoot at an enemy who can't respond).

[Adraeth]

Just read yesterday the DBR army list (the second book) for Montrose and the Irish Pikes are considered PK (I) (so really poor pikes) for they were undrilled and with really short pikes to be a real threat on the battlefield.

[switze01]

And of course the dbr lists were great werent they?

Funny the irish bested standard pike and shot repeatledly
Outnumbered at inverlochy they had no problem

Steve

[Adraeth]

And of course the dbr lists were great werent they?

Funny the irish bested standard pike and shot repeatledly
Outnumbered at inverlochy they had no problem

Steve

I can't quote the DBR lists for the irish, just i mentioned it as a reference

[ahuyton]

I think John's comment in another post:

The Irish brigade has become the source of more written twaddle of a romantic nature than most other troops in history.

is pertinent, and the tone of the list notes comes from a desire to get away from the mythology and try and find the reality.

Well, this is a game, not reality, and being rather fond of the Montrose romance, I find it a pity that the notes are so partisan. But of course it won't stop me building the army. I was similarly disappointed by the comments on the FoG ancients Post Roman British list, where poor old Artos/Arthur gets a beating. One should not take 'history' so seriously, I think

[timmy1]

ahuyton, sorry I think you are on the wrong forum. This is a forum about a game that simulates military history of the period. There are other forums for mythology and romance but this is not what this one is for.

[rbodleyscott]

I think John's comment in another post:

The Irish brigade has become the source of more written twaddle of a romantic nature than most other troops in history.

is pertinent, and the tone of the list notes comes from a desire to get away from the mythology and try and find the reality.

Well, this is a game, not reality, and being rather fond of the Montrose romance, I find it a pity that the notes are so partisan.

More a question of being biased against partisan views of history.

If you want to sex up your Montrose list a bit, well you can do what you like in friendly games if your opponent consents, so wherein lies the problem?

[marshalney2000]

My notes on the Montose list were not designed to be unfair and indeed I also make some unflattering remarks about the Covenanters and Argyll in particular. I was also setting the record straight re Colkitto who Montrose's biographers tend to denigrate with a view to enhancing Montrose's reputation. At the end of the day much of the legend came from Montrose's chaplain who might be seen to be a little biased in his favour.
John

[david53]

ahuyton, sorry I think you are on the wrong forum. This is a forum about a game that simulates military history of the period. There are other forums for mythology and romance but this is not what this one is for.

Damm Tim I thought it was

[david53]

I think John's comment in another post:

The Irish brigade has become the source of more written twaddle of a romantic nature than most other troops in history.

is pertinent, and the tone of the list notes comes from a desire to get away from the mythology and try and find the reality.

Well, this is a game, not reality, and being rather fond of the Montrose romance, I find it a pity that the notes are so partisan. But of course it won't stop me building the army. I was similarly disappointed by the comments on the FoG ancients Post Roman British list, where poor old Artos/Arthur gets a beating. One should not take 'history' so seriously, I think

Nothing stoping you using anything you feel like on the table if your opponent agrees you might struggle in any events using the FOG lists. Me I think the protestant list should be better since God is on our side is'nt he...........................

[david53]

And of course the dbr lists were great werent they?

Funny the irish bested standard pike and shot repeatledly
Outnumbered at inverlochy they had no problem

Steve

Thought there was only two lowland regiments there and they were on the flank while the fight in the centre was highlander against highlander. Since not being a Campbell I can say they lost well....

[marshalney2000]

The covenanting army was surprised at Inverlochy and as you say most of the army was Campbell levies who were equipped with traditional highland weaponry. It was these that the Irish broke. The Covenanters had at least one good unit which was Argylls own regiment and as you say probably one other which I cannot remember just at the moment. Montrose also had a higher proportion of highlanders although most left the army after the battle.
John
Ps I still want to do a Covenanting general in a galley floating on a major water feature to represent Argyll. There was a man who did not believe in taking any chances.