Scot's Covenanting Infantry
Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 8:41 pm
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
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
