Battle of Aljubarrota, 1385

[stockwellpete]

Important battle in what is sometimes described as the Poruguese crisis of 1383-5. Thanks to lascar and Frank for helping with the play-testing.

EDIT: updated to Version 3.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/15461007/Battle ... 20PWv3.rar

[lascar]

I'll take you up on your offer. The Portuguese sounds like a real challenge to play but I'll bow to your superior expertise on this this one and go for the Castilians instead.

[stockwellpete]

I'll take you up on your offer. The Portuguese sounds like a real challenge to play but I'll bow to your superior expertise on this this one and go for the Castilians instead.

OK, Lascar, you have PM.

[stockwellpete]

Scenario now available in first post of this thread.

[stockwellpete]

Scenario updated to Version 3.

[Praeter]

I'll give it a go - I see you mention the design would work well for aljubarrota as well - the standard scenario for this battle doesn't seem at all right to me. Has anyone done another version?

[fogman]

I'll give it a go - I see you mention the design would work well for aljubarrota as well - the standard scenario for this battle doesn't seem at all right to me. Has anyone done another version?

no. relatively obscure. extraordinary circumstances as such battles require special design. when the scenario is designed simply as a themed dag game, it just doesn't work as you have noticed.

[stockwellpete]

I'll give it a go - I see you mention the design would work well for aljubarrota as well - the standard scenario for this battle doesn't seem at all right to me. Has anyone done another version?

Aljubarrota is one of mine, Praeter. What did you feel was wrong with it? It is a few years since I made it now so I cannot remember exactly which sources I used but I do remember this Wikipedia link which has useful maps and diagrams . . .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Aljubarrota

[Praeter]

I'll give it a go - I see you mention the design would work well for aljubarrota as well - the standard scenario for this battle doesn't seem at all right to me. Has anyone done another version?

Aljubarrota is one of mine, Praeter. What did you feel was wrong with it? It is a few years since I made it now so I cannot remember exactly which sources I used but I do remember this Wikipedia link which has useful maps and diagrams . . .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Aljubarrota

I felt that the strong Portuguese position seemed right - with ditches replicating the defensive works. But what didn't work for me was the lack of Castilian Jinetes that went in the first charge with the knights. Also from what I've read about the battle the slope actually favoured the Castilians as the Portuguese were forced to turn around their position - also the Portuguese had archers placed on the flanks and the Castilians were hit with flanking fire. This is the impression I got from Sumption's Divided Houses anyway. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hundred-Years-W ... 571240127/

[stockwellpete]

I felt that the strong Portuguese position seemed right - with ditches replicating the defensive works. But what didn't work for me was the lack of Castilian Jinetes that went in the first charge with the knights. Also from what I've read about the battle the slope actually favoured the Castilians as the Portuguese were forced to turn around their position - also the Portuguese had archers placed on the flanks and the Castilians were hit with flanking fire. This is the impression I got from Sumption's Divided Houses anyway. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hundred-Years-W ... 571240127/

I have found this as well . . . http://www.fundacao-aljubarrota.pt/?idc=21 I know that I didn't use this for the battle; I think it was probably the Wikipedia link combined with Froissart. I think the Portuguese were on the hill so the Castilians did have to fight uphill. The new link suggests that the first cavalry charge was mainly French and that Spanish cavalry subsequently dismounted because of the difficult terrain. I have got the Portuguese crossbowmen giving the flanking fire with the English archers in the centre - perhaps I got that from Froissart? I can't actually remember now.

[fogman]

the standard work (not some random guy writing on the internet):
João Gouveia Monteiro: 'The Battle of Aljubarrota (1385): A Reassessment (pp. 75-103)' in The Journal of Medieval Military History, volume VII, 2009.

[Praeter]

I have found this as well . . . http://www.fundacao-aljubarrota.pt/?idc=21 I know that I didn't use this for the battle; I think it was probably the Wikipedia link combined with Froissart. I think the Portuguese were on the hill so the Castilians did have to fight uphill. The new link suggests that the first cavalry charge was mainly French and that Spanish cavalry subsequently dismounted because of the difficult terrain. I have got the Portuguese crossbowmen giving the flanking fire with the English archers in the centre - perhaps I got that from Froissart? I can't actually remember now.

I think the link to the battlefield museum site provides some fairly good information - definitely I have the impression of a battle where the Castilians have archers shooting at them from the sides from the description there and being forced to advance over a small front over difficult ground (much like at Agincourt actually) - and also I don't think they're going uphill - that was the original position - but the Castilians marched to come out at the back of that position so it sounds like they're on top of the same plateau as the Portuguese. I haven't read the Monteiro article as it's behind a paywall.

[stockwellpete]

I think the link to the battlefield museum site provides some fairly good information - definitely I have the impression of a battle where the Castilians have archers shooting at them from the sides from the description there and being forced to advance over a small front over difficult ground (much like at Agincourt actually) - and also I don't think they're going uphill - that was the original position - but the Castilians marched to come out at the back of that position so it sounds like they're on top of the same plateau as the Portuguese. I haven't read the Monteiro article as it's behind a paywall.

On the question of the slope the Wikipedia article says this . . . "The Castilian vanguard arrived from the north around midday. Seeing the strongly defensive position occupied by the Portuguese, John of Castile decided to avoid combat on John of Portugal's terms. Slowly, due to the numbers of his army (about 31,000 men), the Castilian army started to contour the hill where the Portuguese were located. John of Castile's scouts had noticed that the South side of the hill had a gentler slope and it was there that the Castilian king wanted to attack."

This suggests to me that the Portuguese were on still on the higher ground but the gradual slope on the southern side of the hill would make the assault easier. Have you got something that contradicts this or is it that we are interpreting this Wikipedia information differently?

[Praeter]

I'm going on mostly what's in Sumption:

Their position here was less strong, since the Castilians would be attacking down a gentle slope, but the Portuguese had time to strengthen it by building primitive field fortifications in front of their line: a line of stakes and brushwood and a series of deep trenches. John of Trastámara sent the chronicler Ayala forward as a parlementaire with an escort of men-at-arms. Ayala’s formal task was to demand that John of Avis should avoid spilling blood in such an unworthy cause, but the real object of his mission was to reconnoitre the Portuguese lines and report back to the King and his advisers. Ayala quickly formed the view that it would madness to attack the enemy’s positions that day. It was now late afternoon. The Castilians were exhausted. They had not eaten since morning. Their cavalry were on their own, since the bowmen and infantry were still struggling through the valley with the supply train and had not yet reached the main road. The Portuguese line was too narrow to enable the whole Castilian army to engage it and a flanking action was impossible because of the creek on either side. A direct frontal assault on the Portuguese centre would require the Castilian centre to run the gauntlet of the two blocks of English and Portuguese bowmen on the wings.

Sumption, Jonathan (2011-06-02). Hundred Years War Vol 3: Divided Houses: v. 3 (Kindle Locations 12987-12995). Faber & Faber. Kindle Edition.

I think key factors would be the narrow battlefield, the defensive trenches/pits, the archers on the flanks and the exhaustion of the Castilians - perhaps that could be reflected in decreasing some of their quality to Poor?

[stockwellpete]

I'm going on mostly what's in Sumption: . . .

I think key factors would be the narrow battlefield, the defensive trenches/pits, the archers on the flanks and the exhaustion of the Castilians - perhaps that could be reflected in decreasing some of their quality to Poor?

OK, thanks. That is some new information for me. There are actually a number of additional things suggesting a new version of this scenario would be worthwhile now. Apparently there is some recent discussion as to whether the Castilian army was that much bigger than the Portuguese; the text on the Battlefield museum site suggests that some Castilians remained mounted on the right flank; and Sumption puts the English archers on the flanks. And yes, it could work quite well to represent exhaustion as "poor" in some of the Castilian troops.

I have just found this article as well that suggests the Castilians arrived piecemeal and impetuously attacked the Portuguese position with disastrous results (similarities with Crecy?). . .

http://deremilitari.org/2014/05/the-pun ... jubarrota/

I am going to start a review of my scenarios once we get the new version as it does seem a bit different from the original game.

This is splendid . .

http://s1074.photobucket.com/user/1Catr ... 0.jpg.html

[Praeter]

I think a lot of battles of this era are open to interpretation - all depends on the quality of the sources.