The "Mystery" of Taillebourg 1242 . . .

[fogman]

Those 'some' are professional HIstorians, experts who can read French historical articles.

Some fighting happened. Whether it's called a skirmish or battle is semantics. Next someone will write an article on how the battle of Lodi never happened because it's just some scuffles on a bridge.

Those 'professional historians' are reading it one way, some will read it differently.

[Paul59]

Regarding the ratio of knights to sergeants, don't forget that the Knights units themselves contain a large number of sergeants.

Yes, I understand that, but I read this in Osprey's "French Medieval Armies 1000-1300AD" . . .

"By the early 14thC squires outnumbered knights by no less than 10 to 1 in some French armies." (p7)

These are described as professional sergeants with comparable equipment to knights. Also, on that page, it talks about the French king being able to afford a standing army on the border of Normandy in 1202, which included 257 knights and 267 mounted sergeants with 2500 other soldiers, mainly infantry. So between 1200 and 1300 there seems to be quite a big change occuring.

Sorry Pete,

I think that you are getting sergeants and squires muddled up. Sergeants were commoners, but trained fighting men, who if mounted, fought in support of the "knights", or fought on foot.

A squire was originally a knight's servant, and purely engaged as a non-combatant. But by the 14th century many French knights could no longer afford to be a noble, and so lost their "knightly status. They were then considered "squires", but were still heavily armed fighting men. I believe such men are still counted as "knights" in the game (or men-at-arms as they will be called in the later DLCs). I am sure RBS (or fogman) will correct me on any of this.

cheers

Paul

[stockwellpete]

Sorry Pete,

I think that you are getting sergeants and squires muddled up. Sergeants were commoners, but trained fighting men, who if mounted, fought in support of the "knights", or fought on foot.

Well, I might be, but in Osprey the squires are being described as "professional sergeants", equipped very similarly to an ordinary knight. The book seems to be using the two terms to describe the same group of people and says that the divisions between the different categories of squire was breaking down in the 13thC. And actually for the standing French army on the borders of Normandy in 1202 it just lists knights and sergeants. Squires are not mentioned at all. So are these particular mounted sergeants from 1202 actually squires, or are they something else?

I am rating these sergeants as "above average, armoured with lance" in the scenario (because the French army has the Anglo-Gascon army on the defensive, so I am using it as a way to model relatively better French morale and aggression), whereas the sergeants in FOG2 Medieval are rated "average", armoured with lance" Are these not the same group of people then?

A squire was originally a knight's servant, and purely engaged as a non-combatant. But by the 14th century many French knights could no longer afford to be a noble, and so lost their "knightly status. They were then considered "squires", but were still heavily armed fighting men. I believe such men are still counted as "knights" in the game (or men-at-arms as they will be called in the later DLCs). I am sure RBS (or fogman) will correct me on any of this.

Yes, a clarification would help. I think the changes were probably happening before the 14thC though.

[stockwellpete]

Just came across this . . .

From the "Chronicles of Hainault", referring to 1187 . . .

"The count of Hainaut came at his own expense to the king of France's aid with 110 chosen knights and 80 mounted sergeants with chain mail … the count of Hainaut's men were handsome to see, because all his men, with the sole exception of the most virtuous knight Baldwin (namely of Strépy), had horses equipped with iron armour. Among the sergeants, many were armed as knights and had horses covered with iron."

[Paul59]

Well, I might be, but in Osprey the squires are being described as "professional sergeants", equipped very similarly to an ordinary knight.

Where exactly in the book does it say that?

The book seems to be using the two terms to describe the same group of people and says that the divisions between the different categories of squire was breaking down in the 13thC.

I've skimmed through the book, and to me it seems to be saying that they are two different groups of people, and that is my understanding from other sources I have read.

And actually for the standing French army on the borders of Normandy in 1202 it just lists knights and sergeants. Squires are not mentioned at all. So are these particular mounted sergeants from 1202 actually squires, or are they something else?

They are probably sergeants, my understanding is at that time squires were still mainly servants, and rarely required to get involved in fighting, except in emergencies.

I am rating these sergeants as "above average, armoured with lance" in the scenario (because the French army has the Anglo-Gascon army on the defensive, so I am using it as a way to model relatively better French morale and aggression), whereas the sergeants in FOG2 Medieval are rated "average", armoured with lance" Are these not the same group of people then?

Yes, they are the same group of people. There is no reason why sergeants can't be upgraded for a scenario, after all they are professional soldiers, they could easily perform better than expected on occasion, or you could have a particularly effective group of men.

[stockwellpete]

Where exactly in the book does it say that?

Page 7, the paragraph starting "The growing importance of non-noble, but professional sergeants . . ."

I've skimmed through the book, and to me it seems to be saying that they are two different groups of people, and that is my understanding from other sources I have read.

I have ordered the book now. I can read the first few pages through the "Look Inside" feature on one of the online booksellers.

[Paul59]

Where exactly in the book does it say that?

Page 7, the paragraph starting "The growing importance of non-noble, but professional sergeants . . ."

I've skimmed through the book, and to me it seems to be saying that they are two different groups of people, and that is my understanding from other sources I have read.

I have ordered the book now. I can read the first few pages through the "Look Inside" feature on one of the online booksellers.

Nicolle starts the paragraph talking about the growing importance of the non-noble sergeants. Then, in the sentence that starts "During the 13th century..." he shifts emphasis and starts to talk about the growing numbers of squires.

These are two different groups of people, the squires were not non-noble, they were from noble families, often the sons of knights. At this period (12th/13th centuries) they were usually teenagers, who were employed as servants, looking after the knights, their horses and equipment. When they reached 21 years old, or sooner if they had excelled themselves, they were dubbed knights, and expected to become proper fighting men. But as Nicolle writes, this situation gradually changed during the 13th century, as many young men could no longer afford the expense of a knight's life style, so they remained as squires, but as they were now of age were expected too fight. By the 14th century, squires greatly outnumbered actual knights. But for our game, this does not matter much, because these late 13th century/14th century "squires' were often armed and armoured just like knights, in equipment given to them by their lord, or handed down to them from their fathers etc.

The sergeants were commoners, but could be dubbed knights if they had performed great service, and they were sometimes well equipped by their lords, as your quote about the Count of Hainault shows. As Nicolle says, some impoverished knights were reduced to the status of sergeants.

By the 14th century, the clear lines of distinction that once existed between knight, squire and sergeant were becoming very blurred when we are referring to soldiers on the battlefield. Sure, a wealthy noble knight could be identified by his heraldry and the latest flashy Italian suit of armour, but to our modern eyes a sergeant or squire in full armour would not look much different, and would count the same in FOG2. But at the time of Taillebourg/Saintes, I think we can assume that the old distinctions were still there.

[stockwellpete]

By the 14th century, the clear lines of distinction that once existed between knight, squire and sergeant were becoming very blurred when we are referring to soldiers on the battlefield. Sure, a wealthy noble knight could be identified by his heraldry and the latest flashy Italian suit of armour, but to our modern eyes a sergeant or squire in full armour would not look much different, and would count the same in FOG2. But at the time of Taillebourg/Saintes, I think we can assume that the old distinctions were still there.

OK, thanks. That makes sense. It seems like the situation was changing during the course of the 13thC and that the old social categories were breaking down. Obviously this would happen at different speeds in different places. So, for this scenario, at the moment I have 8x mounted knights and 8x mounted sergeants. It sounds like I need to change 4x mounted sergeants into 4x mounted knights so the ratio of knights to sergeants is 3:1. By the 13thC we know that the French were deploying mounted sergeants in separate contingents (e.g. Bouvines).

[Athos1660]

Some fighting happened. Whether it's called a skirmish or battle is semantics. Next someone will write an article on how the battle of Lodi never happened because it's just some scuffles on a bridge.

Semantics ? So there's no difference between :
- an open battle between thousands of men that last several hours and makes hundreds of deaths,
- a skirmish that lasts a few minutes and causes a few wounded,
- no battle at all ?
Sometimes it is better not to try to have the last word...

Those 'professional historians' are reading it one way, some will read it differently.

No. In the real world, if an author writes e.g. 'Nothing happened", he doesn't mean 'Something happened". There's only one way to read a scientific article.

Sorry for the 2 truisms.

[stockwellpete]

Right, here is the OOB for both sides as it stands right now. I want to send the completed scenario to Richard tomorrow as I have Digital league stuff to sort out over the weekend. So you have got 24 hours to send me any corrections. I am particularly interested if you think other regions of France should be represented. For example, I have nothing representing Anjou at the moment. During the reign of Louis IX (1226-1270), France became very powerful, but I am not sure of all the details concerning the constituent parts of the kingdom. I would also be interested in the names of any Gascon leaders involved in this battle.

The French army currently stands at 40 units and 1833 points, while the English weigh in at 30 units and 1236 points. So the French have around 50% more points, but they are stretched out between Taillebourg and Saintes, whereas the English start in a more compact formation and have favourable terrain features to defend.

French
Normandy - 2x mounted knights (MK), 1x sergeants (S), 1x armoured spears (ASp), 1x defensive spears (Sp), 1x crossbows (CB)

Artois - 2x MK, 1x S, 1x ASp, 1x Sp, 1x CB

Poitou - 2x MK, 2x S, 3x Sp 1x CB

Brittany - 2x MK, 1x S, 2x Sp 1x CB

Boulogne - 1x MK, 3x offensive spears (OSp), 1x CB

Ile De France - 2x MK, 2 x Sp (raw), 1 x CB

La Marche rebels - 3x ribauds (R)

Tournai - 1x R


Anglo-Gascon
Henry III - 1x MK

Richard Plantagenet - 1x Foot knight (FK), 1x ASp, 1x Sp

William Longuepee - 1x FK, 2x ASp, 2x Sp, 1x CB

Simon de Montfort - 1x FK, 2x ASp, 2x Sp, 1x CB

Hugh de Lusignan - 1x FK, 2x Sp, 1x CB, 2x R

Humphrey de Bohun - 1x FK, 2x ASp, 1x Archers (A)

Richard de Clare - 1xFK, 1x ASp, 1x Sp, 1x A

[stockwellpete]

And here is a screenshot of the current starting position. The English are leaving their camp to occupy the plateau as the French are beginning their advance.

Screen_00000020.jpg (635.25 KiB) Viewed 3130 times

[Paul59]

Right, here is the OOB for both sides as it stands right now. I want to send the completed scenario to Richard tomorrow as I have Digital league stuff to sort out over the weekend. So you have got 24 hours to send me any corrections. I am particularly interested if you think other regions of France should be represented. For example, I have nothing representing Anjou at the moment.

I would just go with the contingents that you have evidence for. Maybe there was good reason why Anjou (and other regions) was not represented. So what you have seems good to me.

[stockwellpete]

I have sent the scenario into Richard now. It is just for multi-player. Thanks for all the contributions in this thread. Hopefully, Taillebourg is less of "a mystery" than it was a few weeks ago.

[stockwellpete]

Version 2 of this scenario will be available in a few days. I have changed and added the following . . .

1) the topography for Saintes and the plateau in front of the town have been made steeper by adding an extra contour.
2) the English foot knights are now represented by 8 figure units
3) the Boulogne spearmen in the French army are now defensive spearmen
4) the ammunition limit for both sides is 5 shots. There is no "low" ammo shooting.
5) moving and shooting, or turning and shooting, in the same turn is heavily penalised.

Thanks to Paul 59 for scenario scripts and to Snugglebunnies and Lennard for the play-testing.

[stockwellpete]

Now updated.