Building historically "authentic" armies

[stockwellpete]

One of the things that I find most interesting about FOG is to research what I call "historically accurate" armies for any given nation or polity - and then build them with the DAG. Although I regard the DAG as a great resource that has been generally very well-researched, it is still possible to build quite bizarre formations that really do not reflect what historians think is accurate about a particular army. So, for example, it is possible to build a completely mounted late medieval Polish army even though it is very unlikely that such an army ever took part in a major battle (a skirmish maybe). Similarly, it is possible to build a Wars of the Roses army that is stuffed full of knights but that has no shire levies at all. This again is completely ahistorical not least because the social structure of England would not have permitted it. The ruling class in feudalism and early capitalism (i.e. the late medieval period) was always a small minority of the total population whereas the peasantry and early proletariat (the levies) made up the bulk of society.

So the purpose of this thread is for those of us who like our wargames to be as historically accurate as possible to post information and perhaps some suggested orders of battle from the DAG in order for other players to try out different "authentic" armies in their wargames. If you have a favourite army or three that you have researched then please post them here.

NB Of course, part of the fun of FOG is to experiment with rather bizarre line-ups at times - perhaps somebody might like to start a thread along those lines too. Perhaps it could be called something like "The most unusual armies ever fielded in FOG".

[stockwellpete]

I'll start off with what I think is an "authentic" selection for a Wars of the Roses army (1455-1487) . . .

3 x foot knights
1 x mounted knights (these 4 units are my commanders, 3 "field" and 1 "troop" for 3 "battles" and 1 "reserve")
9 x retinue billmen
9 x retinue archers
6 x shire levy billmen
6 x shire levy archers
1 x handgunners
2 x mounted currours
2 x northern levies

This makes 39 BG's in total.

Whereas it is also possible to build this bizarre army from the same DAG list (using same command structure as above) . . .

12 x foot knights
3 x mounted knights
4 x retinue archers
2 x mounted currours
3 x shire levy archers
3 x northern levies
2 x mercenary pikemen

This makes 29 BG's in total. Big difference, isn't it? And this second DAG army would be a very tough proposition.

[TheGrayMouser]

That must be using the Yorkist Petender list no? I think that is the only one that allows pikes and as such is pretty unique. Um, I think your ahistorical army would get trashed, only 29 BG's , yu have no strength in what is really the English lists strength: Longbowman. Of the 3 mounted knights, 2 are average and dont have lances!. Alot of foot MAA but heavy weapons troops dont fare to well any how.

[batesmotel]

If you play with 400 points rather than higher totals, I think you'll find that you will find armies that are more historically constrained. Also, I think you would be more representative of a medieval command structure if you went with 1 FC and 3 TC for a command mix.

Out of curiosity, have you tried playing your two different OBs against each other. An advantage in AP of better than 30% is nothing to sneeze at.

Chris

[stockwellpete]

That must be using the Yorkist Petender list no? I think that is the only one that allows pikes and as such is pretty unique. Um, I think your ahistorical army would get trashed, only 29 BG's , yu have no strength in what is really the English lists strength: Longbowman. Of the 3 mounted knights, 2 are average and dont have lances!. Alot of foot MAA but heavy weapons troops dont fare to well any how.

It is the Yorkist list, TGM. My main point is that the smaller army is not "historically accurate" - and I am interested in identifying realistic orders of battle for the various army lists.

[stockwellpete]

If you play with 400 points rather than higher totals, I think you'll find that you will find armies that are more historically constrained.

OK, I will look at 400pts, I haven't done that.

Also, I think you would be more representative of a medieval command structure if you went with 1 FC and 3 TC for a command mix.

Hmm . . . I wouldn't have said so myself, but I'll try it with the 400pt armies.

Out of curiosity, have you tried playing your two different OBs against each other. An advantage in AP of better than 30% is nothing to sneeze at.

No, I haven't, I just made up that smaller army today. I agree 39 versus 29 is a big advantage.

[TheGrayMouser]

That must be using the Yorkist Petender list no? I think that is the only one that allows pikes and as such is pretty unique. Um, I think your ahistorical army would get trashed, only 29 BG's , yu have no strength in what is really the English lists strength: Longbowman. Of the 3 mounted knights, 2 are average and dont have lances!. Alot of foot MAA but heavy weapons troops dont fare to well any how.

It is the Yorkist list, TGM. My main point is that the smaller army is not "historically accurate" - and I am interested in identifying realistic orders of battle for the various army lists.

Ahh, howver, I think this is a case where a historically inacuarte army is actually at a disadvantge so the system sometimes works:)

What would have been nice in the DAG expansions if pre made starter armies had been included for all the armies.

[stockwellpete]

Ahh, howver, I think this is a case where a historically inacuarte army is actually at a disadvantge so the system sometimes works:)

What would have been nice in the DAG expansions if pre made starter armies had been included for all the armies.

Yes, I think they are both good points. I am looking at the Late Medieval Polish and Teutonic Knight armies at the moment - and I think it is possible to pick virtually mounted armies for both these states. But I wonder how accurate that would be. Of course, historical "accuracy" is problematic in itself as often the sources are often silent on the detail or they have been written as hagiographies (the gallant king slew one hundred enemy single-handed type of thing). At Chojnice in 1454 it seems the Poles may have fielded an army with 80% mounted and 20% foot, while at Swiecino in 1462 the ratio was 50-50.

[TheGrayMouser]

Ahh, howver, I think this is a case where a historically inacuarte army is actually at a disadvantge so the system sometimes works:)

What would have been nice in the DAG expansions if pre made starter armies had been included for all the armies.

Yes, I think they are both good points. I am looking at the Late Medieval Polish and Teutonic Knight armies at the moment - and I think it is possible to pick virtually mounted armies for both these states. But I wonder how accurate that would be. Of course, historical "accuracy" is problematic in itself as often the sources are often silent on the detail or they have been written as hagiographies (the gallant king slew one hundred enemy single-handed type of thing). At Chojnice in 1454 it seems the Poles may have fielded an army with 80% mounted and 20% foot, while at Swiecino in 1462 the ratio was 50-50.

Yep the poles can be compeltely mounted, you have probobly fought vs my mounted Poles several times in the last week

[stockwellpete]

Yep the poles can be compeltely mounted, you have probobly fought vs my mounted Poles several times in the last week

Erm . . . yes. If I can prove that you have defeated me six times in a row with a historically inaccurate army will you issue a grovelling public apology?

[stockwellpete]

Also, I think you would be more representative of a medieval command structure if you went with 1 FC and 3 TC for a command mix.

Chris, if I can go back to this point again for a moment - in the "Eternal Empire" book it helpfully provides "starter armies" and most of these seem to have a "field" commander as the C-in-C and "troop" commanders as the supporting leaders.

Does this have something to do with the TT rules (I know absolutely nothing about these) or is it intended to be a more "authentic" historical representation of the limited capabilities of command and control on the medieval battlefield? In my quest to pick more historically accurate armies should I be using the "field"-"troop"-"troop" model more often than not, instead of my more traditional "field"-"field"- "field"/or "troop" selection? Cheers.

[batesmotel]

I believe the design intent in the rules is that a FC represents a normal competent army commander or an exceptionally talented subordinate. A TC represents a normal lower level commander or a lees than competent higher level commander. ICs represent the really exceptional commanders like Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar. So an average command structure is probably best represented by an FC as CinC with TCs as subordinates for a battle where none of the historical commanders were exceptionally talented or incompetent.

In TT games at the usual 800 points, the most common commander combinations used are either 4 TCs or else 1 IC and 2 TC. These seem to be what players seem to find most cost effective in game terms. In gneral I think that commanders tend to be relatively more expensive and less effective (due to being tied to a single BG) in FoG PC so players normally use fewer commanders than with an equivalent size TT army. (400 points for the PC is about the equivalent of 800 for TT.)

Chris

[stockwellpete]

OK thanks, that is very helpful.

[stockwellpete]

And using the leadership criteria that Chris has provided, it allows me to do this with my "model" WotR Yorkist army . . .

1x Mounted Royal Guard Men-at-Arms
1x Mounted Men-at-Arms
1x dismounted knight

*these are my 3 commanders ("Field", "Troop" and "Troop" respectively)

11x retinue billmen
10x retinue longbowmen
6x shire levy billmen
10x shire levy archers
1x currours
1x northern border horse
4x northern border shire levy (spears)
2x northern billmen
2x mercenary handgunners
1x mercenary pikemen (Burgundians)
1x light artillery

That is a whopping 52 BG's! (instead of 39)

[TheGrayMouser]

I find that the army lists that come from the British Isles , regardless of expansion pack/historical era, are usualy quite powerful and can put out very large armies. Its almost as if the rules authors were British or something

[stockwellpete]

I find that the army lists that come from the British Isles , regardless of expansion pack/historical era, are usualy quite powerful and can put out very large armies. Its almost as if the rules authors were British or something

A scandalous insinuation!

[stockwellpete]

This is interesting about the Polish-Lithuanian and Teutonic armies at Grunwald . . .

"In 1410, warfare finally decided who would control the Baltic coast. The more numerous but more lightly armed Polish-Lithuanian force brought the war into Prussian territory. King Jagiello commanded a Polish army of 20,000 mounted nobles, 15,000 armed commoners, and 2,000 professional cavalry, mostly hired from Bohemia. The Lithuanian army, commanded by Vytautas but under Jagiello’s overall command, consisted of about 11,000 light cavalry drawn from both the Lithuanian and the Ruthenian areas of the Grand Duchy; Tatars also fought under the Lithuanian flag.

The army of the Teutonic Knights numbered 16,000 cavalry supported by 5,000 infantry. German, Slavic, and Prussian subjects of the Order fought in both the cavalry and the infantry. A heavily armed group of 500 Knights of the Cross, supplemented with a modest number of foreign guests drawn from as far away as Burgundy, provided a powerful, professional shock force that had won many battles for the Order in previous decades."

http://www.washington.edu/uwpress/searc ... STOPOL.pdf

The Polish-Lithuanian State, 1386-1795, Daniel Stone, University of Washington Press, 2001.

[stockwellpete]

There are other issues to ponder about the Teutonic lists too, particularly the later one. One is the issue of whether they should e allowed the option of a fortified camp. There is evidence that they did build one of these at Grunwald-Tannenberg 1410 with their wagons forming part of the perimeter at least. Another is the issue of the "Turcopoles", or more correctly the Turkopolen, who were light cavalry indigenous to the Baltic region. They certainly consisted of Livonians, who were predominantly horse archers, and the Lithuanians who were light lancers who also carried a bow. There were other pagan, or former pagan, societies in the Baltic region who may also have supplied light horse contingents to the Teutonic army. But it does mean that there is a question about the Turcopole (medium) cavalry in the DAG list. I have not come across these yet in my readings, although I am still waiting to get my hands on Urban's quite recent "Military History of the Teutonic Knights".

[stockwellpete]

So a "model" Later Teutonic army might look something like this . . .

6x Brother knights (one is C-in-C, "Field")
5x Crusader knights (one is "troop")
3x mercenary knights (one is "troop")
6x Turkopolen (LH)
3x mounted crossbowmen (Cav)
2x Serving Brother spearmen (HF)
4x mercenary crossbowmen
3x subject foot spearmen (2 "average", 1 "poor", MF)
1x subject archers ("poor" LF)

33 BG's in total, 23 of them mounted (or just over two-third of the total), which is roughly the proportion at Grunwald-Tannenberg (1410).

[Ardaeshir]

Another is the issue of the "Turcopoles", or more correctly the Turkopolen, who were light cavalry indigenous to the Baltic region. They certainly consisted of Livonians, who were predominantly horse archers, and the Lithuanians who were light lancers who also carried a bow. There were other pagan, or former pagan, societies in the Baltic region who may also have supplied light horse contingents to the Teutonic army. But it does mean that there is a question about the Turcopole (medium) cavalry in the DAG list. I have not come across these yet in my readings, although I am still waiting to get my hands on Urban's quite recent "Military History of the Teutonic Knights".

It seems that prussian pagan subjects provided mostly spearmen and archer infantry. Ex-chieftains who converted to christianity usually became "westernized" in one or two generations and would probably fight as normal mounted vassals. I'd sooner assume large cities like Danzig, Konigsberg or Thorn to field some small amounts of auxilary light cavalry.
In any case, their numbers would be limited. IMHO, FoG has far too many "turkopole" style cavalry asssigned to the Teutonic list.

What the list SHOULD have is half-brother cavalry. Half-brothers played several important roles in the Teutocnic knight society, but when it comes to warfare they fought in a similar fashion to regular knights, but most had cheaper weapons and armor and likely few were as professional as brother knights. So I'd see them as average armored drilled knights.