Scot's Covenanting Infantry

[marshalney2000]

Having looked at the list and compared it with my various source and reference books I think w eneed to split up the list a little. It seems to me tat their are several incarnations of the army of the solemn league and covenant we need to look at and perhaps rate separately.
The periods are:
1 The 1639 period of the Bishops War and also the fight against the early Royalists in Scotland (Huntly)
2 The Covenant forces in Ireland
3 The army that crossed the border in 1644
4 The army that fought Montrose in Scotland
5 The second civil war and Battle of Preston
6 The Battles of Dunbar and Worcester
Let me say that I am not advocating a separate list or even sub list for each of the above but just want to test how these fitinto the list structure we currently have. I should also mention that for completeness I will need to build into the scot's Royalist list something to reflect the Royalist structure of 1639 and wonder if something should also be included in the English Royalist list to include the Bishops War or we might have a void.

Looking at each of these in turn:

1639 and Bishops war:
All of the Covenant forces were hastily levied and I think the minimum of 18 poor troops is essential and indeed might be worthy of an increase. the musket* is well deserved

The Covenant Forces in Ireland:

This is a bit of a toughy as certainly the first three units that went were pretty much the dregs of the country and sound like they were toughs recruited at chucking out time in Glasgow on a Saturday night. In historical parallel terms they seemed to do the same as the Black and Tans and the auxilliaries of the Irish troubles 270 years later i.e. brutalise the population and help recruitment for the opposition. The later regiment of foot are more of an enigma and the feel is that they were of better quality. If we take the 18 poor compulsories as representing the first three regiments then the otion is with the player a sto the rating of the others. Again evidenc esuggests a shortage of firearms so musket* seems ok.

The 1644 Marston Moor Army:

To me this is the cream of the bunch in that time for training was taken and with the money provided by the English parliament equipment was less of a problem. (Albeit the English were often slow to pay and even less likely to pay the full amount - cementing yet again the story about the English being mean).On the advance to the border certain units were peeled off as garrisons and I suspec that these were the lower quality. One of these units was Argylls Own Regiment which later when brought back to Scotland to help against Montrose was one of the first to leg it. The remainde ri contend wer egood average units. At the beginning of Marston Moor some units were pushed back in disorder but so were the Parliamentarian which stood beside them. The Scot's units are then shown as rallying and pushing back successfully even helping to break the Royalist horse as well as the foot.
Looking at the numbers involved one could alsmost suggest the allie darmy should be Scots with a parliamentarian ally or like the compromise in the battle of ipsos where the army can half Lysamachius and half Seleukus.
In essence the 1644 army should I believe not have the minimum of 18 poor foot. Interestingly there is little less to gauge the army on as much of the rest of the time it was involved in seiges and of course looting.

Covenanters in Scotland;

Much of the early battles (Tippermuir and Aberdeen) were fought by militia units who should all be poor and musket* but thereafter we see a growing stream of units from England being sent back to turn the tide although they still usually foot alongside militia. In the circumstances the minimum of 18 poor does not seem unreasonable and these being musket * also works for me. The list as shown still alllows a reasonable number of avarag eunits to represent Campbell of Lawers etc who came back. We hav eto be careful with this list that it is not too good or we risk having to make the Scot's Royalists too good to compensate.
One additional thought is do we want to make a special option for Phiphaugh where the army consisted of 1 mounted infantry regiment, one dragoon regiment with the rest being horse with additional companies of dragoons attached to the cavalry.

The remaining period:

I think i can group these together as in both cases the foot seem to have been a mixture of established regiments and those quickly raised so the 18 minimum poor seems to be ok. My feel however was with so amny firearms sloshing around that even the poor migh have achieved the musket with no * status.

Hope this provides foot for thought and debate.
Separate notes to follow on horse (this is a nightmare) and highlanders serving witht the covenanting forces.
John

[marshalney2000]

I should have added that in 1644 neither the Royalists or Parliamentarians have any compulsory poor troops yet some of these particularly local units would have had no more experience than the Scots.
We also need to look at the Covenanting ally lst where some armoured pikemen are shown. I can find no evidence that we Scot's needed and indeed had more than a good buff coat at best.
John

[nikgaukroger]

Let me say that I am not advocating a separate list or even sub list for each of the above but just want to test how these fitinto the list structure we currently have. I should also mention that for completeness I will need to build into the scot's Royalist list something to reflect the Royalist structure of 1639 and wonder if something should also be included in the English Royalist list to include the Bishops War or we might have a void.

I believe I covered the Bishops Wars in the Early Caroline English - although it may need improving

[nikgaukroger]

We also need to look at the Covenanting ally lst where some armoured pikemen are shown.

Really?

Aren't any in the one I have - which is the one that is in the current Wars of Religion draft.

[marshalney2000]

Ah,II have not looked at the early Caroline English yet so apologies from me for that.
Re the Covenanting allies, in the beta lists I printed off on 31st of august for the Parliamentarians a Scot's Covenant list was attached which had armoured horse and pike. Indeed the horse were all average. It is possible of course this has been replaced as I have not had a chance to go through everything that RBS sent me two days ago.
John

[rbodleyscott]

Ah,II have not looked at the early Caroline English yet so apologies from me for that.
Re the Covenanting allies, in the beta lists I printed off on 31st of august for the Parliamentarians a Scot's Covenant list was attached which had armoured horse and pike. Indeed the horse were all average. It is possible of course this has been replaced as I have not had a chance to go through everything that RBS sent me two days ago.
John

Please forget about the beta lists John. They are not to be taken as indicative of what we think the final lists should be. They were a quick draft by Charles for testing purposes only. Our thinking has moved on since then, but we are not going to waste time updating the beta lists.

[marshalney2000]

Thanks Richard. a little confused though as to what I should have. I got an e mail today which I think gave me 5 lists which Nik had produced but what I got from you yesterday just seemed to be the beta lists again or am I missing something? Probably my confusion but just wanted to check.
John

[rbodleyscott]

Thanks Richard. a little confused though as to what I should have. I got an e mail today which I think gave me 5 lists which Nik had produced but what I got from you yesterday just seemed to be the beta lists again or am I missing something? Probably my confusion but just wanted to check.
John

The zip file I sent you today also included

FoG_Colonies_and_Conquest_V1.03
FoG_Duty_and_Glory_V1.01
FoG_Trade_and_Treachery_V1.06
FoG_Wars_of_Religion_V1.11

These are the draft versions of the production lists.

These are the ones you should be looking at (until the next update). Ignore any lists in files starting with "Lists for beta testers"

Each time I send you a zip file it will contain the latest versions.

[marshalney2000]

Richard, it is all clear now and I have the files. Ignorance is slowly dropping from my eyes.
John

[marshalney2000]

Something I forgot was if you want to make provision for it then a PhilipHaugh Covenanting army would only allow for one foot regiment (average), 1 unit of dragoons and the rest all cavalry (all average ) with attached elements of dragoons and no artillery.
I have made no provision for the attached companies of halberds within each foot unit in the later period as I am not sure if it actually moved much beyond the paper it was proposed on and probably is just an added complexity.
John

[nikgaukroger]

The 1644 Marston Moor Army:

To me this is the cream of the bunch in that time for training was taken and with the money provided by the English parliament equipment was less of a problem. (Albeit the English were often slow to pay and even less likely to pay the full amount - cementing yet again the story about the English being mean).On the advance to the border certain units were peeled off as garrisons and I suspec that these were the lower quality. One of these units was Argylls Own Regiment which later when brought back to Scotland to help against Montrose was one of the first to leg it. The remainde ri contend wer egood average units. At the beginning of Marston Moor some units were pushed back in disorder but so were the Parliamentarian which stood beside them. The Scot's units are then shown as rallying and pushing back successfully even helping to break the Royalist horse as well as the foot.

I believe that there was a chunk of rather fragile Scots foot at Marston Moor. There is the letter from one commander writing back to Scotland about a number of regiments (on the right, 2nd line IIRC) that broke and fled without fighting - Poor seems to fit these quite nicely and, IMO, justify some Poor being compulsory.

Looking at the numbers involved one could alsmost suggest the allie darmy should be Scots with a parliamentarian ally or like the compromise in the battle of ipsos where the army can half Lysamachius and half Seleukus.

Worth looking at what the best way to represent Marston Moor is. I think it was the only time there was battlefield co-operation between the Scots and English Parliamentarians and so an ally for the latter would not really be correct.

The remaining period:

I think i can group these together as in both cases the foot seem to have been a mixture of established regiments and those quickly raised so the 18 minimum poor seems to be ok. My feel however was with so amny firearms sloshing around that even the poor migh have achieved the musket with no * status.

No problem with them being full Musket if it is justified.

[marshalney2000]

I can live with some poor foot in the 1644 army but would like to see some distinction between the army in Scotland and that south of the border in that the quality of the covenanting armies in Scotland always improved when the guys from down South were sent home. How about 0-12 in 1644.
John