Covenanting Cavalry

[marshalney2000]

Firstly let me say that I see the Covenanting Cavlry as having a major deficiency namely that the quality of horeflesh did not allow them to field real armoured horse in the way that the royalists and parliamentarians did but evidence would suggest that theyacquiited themselves pretty well and did not suffer from a lack of motivation or enthusiam. Inded in many key battles they did very well.
At Marston Moor they were a major force in breaking the Royalist horse. At Musselborough before Dunbar they roughed up the original ironsides and wer eonly driven off when fresh troops came up. Even in the rout after Dunbar they did well against the English horse. Even at worcester they seem to have been seen as the best of the army.
Re fighting style, they seemed unless lance armed to favour the firing option rather than the full blooded charge. Indeed at alford there is a description of he two bodies of horse from each side firing until they eventually closed when the fight became a rugby scrum with the horses pushing against each other with no movement from eithe rside until Montrose ordered the Irish Brigade to throw aside their pikes and muskets and charge in in support of the Gordon Horse.
I accept that regulations for half a regiment to have lances were introduced but I would suggest that the lance was in additon to the pistols not in stead of. Id not believe that they formed up in the front rank rear rank formation suggested by the list but rather would have worked in separate squadrons.
Interestingly, the Scots seemed moseffective in the early stage of the combat (the impact ) but thereafter weight of horse, armour etc told against them. It is true that they should be outclassed by most English horse but most of these are superior, armoured and it seems to me calling the Scot's cavalry poor at best is going a stage too far particulalrywhen even Cromwelll and his commanders had pasue for thought after Musselborough. Making them average would still leave them at a significant disadvantage but allow historical performance to be better replicated.
In summary:
- I would remove the armour option as i cannot find any full armoured regiments.
- In 1639 leave the cavalry poor
- In Ireland proably option for either poor or average
- 1644 and 1645 and 1645 to 1648 all average but lancers with pistols and in separtae units from pistoliers.
- 1644 and 1645 in Scotland half poor and half average again with separate lancers and pistoliers
- rest of the period average but all lancers pistol.
I can expand on this as appropriate but I honestly feel the current match ups in England go too far.
By the way if we can put the Covenanting list to bed sooner rather than later I can then do the Scot's royalist list. Obviously it is important to get the match up between the two lists right.
John

[nikgaukroger]

By the way if we can put the Covenanting list to bed sooner rather than later I can then do the Scot's royalist list. Obviously it is important to get the match up between the two lists right.

John, I wouldn't wait to get a list finalised before starting others - things never work that way Afterall the rules are not yet finalised and there is always a chance things will need revisiting because of changes there. Personally I never consider lists finalised until we send them off to Osprey

[marshalney2000]

Nik, point taken. I was going to make a start anyway so I will push on with aview to getting something to Richard and yourself by the end of the week.
John

[nikgaukroger]

At Marston Moor they were a major force in breaking the Royalist horse.

By attacking them in their flank according to nearly all reconstructions I've read. No need to be anything really good for that They were roughly handled by the Royalist northern horse at Corbridge earlier in the campaign to boot, which may well explain why they were deployed well away from the enemy initially at marston Moor.

At Musselborough before Dunbar they roughed up the original ironsides and wer eonly driven off when fresh troops came up. Even in the rout after Dunbar they did well against the English horse. Even at worcester they seem to have been seen as the best of the army.

These deserve to be Average IMO.

I accept that regulations for half a regiment to have lances were introduced but I would suggest that the lance was in additon to the pistols not in stead of. Id not believe that they formed up in the front rank rear rank formation suggested by the list but rather would have worked in separate squadrons.

The list formation need not be literal, it is a way of representing the separate squadrons co-operating reasonably closely. Of course separate BGs of the different types are a possible alternative.

[marshalney2000]

I think separate squadrons is best as I think in practice the pistoliers would have fired at the enemy horse while the lancers waited their chance to hit any enamy whose formation was broken up by the fire. The pistols behinfd the lancers in the same bg does not simulate this correctly.
I accept at Marston Moor it was a flank charge but certainly not the case in other fights.
looking forward to seeing your amended list hile I am making good progress with the Royalists.
John

[nikgaukroger]

I think separate squadrons is best as I think in practice the pistoliers would have fired at the enemy horse while the lancers waited their chance to hit any enamy whose formation was broken up by the fire. The pistols behinfd the lancers in the same bg does not simulate this correctly.

Well the mixed formation can shoot (with 2 bases) so I think it is possible to shoot and charge at the appropriate moment.

[marshalney2000]

Accepted but does it look right. The individual squadrons of pistoliers and lancers looks better well at least to me. I am also unsure of how strictly the half and half was observed. If you look for example at the Gordon horse who defected to Montose in 1645 there is no mention of lances at all. Admittedly some units are described as lancers but these are in the minority and are not the Gordon Horse.
Where do we stand on the lancers having pistol as well?
John

[nikgaukroger]

Where do we stand on the lancers having pistol as well?
John

All that I have read - Reid's Osprey and Partizan Press book on the Covenanter armies so not that much - say that the lance was considered an acceptable alternative to pistols. This would seem to say no pistol capability for them. However, it all I have read so ...

[marshalney2000]

I will do some more digging before rushing back into print.
John

[marshalney2000]

Nik, I am happy to delete the pistols from Lancer armed cavalry as I can find no heavy weight evidence to confirm they carried both. What happened to the pistols they had before they had the lances?
Equally I am certain from some of my reading that not all the cavalry adopted the half regiment with lance half with pistols model. Some regiments are described as being too keen at firing off their pistols to make the change. Can i suggest that their is an option for some of the cavalry to be taken a ssolely pistol armed. Even as late as Dunbar one regiment is recorded as remining pistol armed. I don't have it to hand but Ican look up the name of the reigiment if you want.
John

[nikgaukroger]

Nik, I am happy to delete the pistols from Lancer armed cavalry as I can find no heavy weight evidence to confirm they carried both. What happened to the pistols they had before they had the lances?
Equally I am certain from some of my reading that not all the cavalry adopted the half regiment with lance half with pistols model. Some regiments are described as being too keen at firing off their pistols to make the change. Can i suggest that their is an option for some of the cavalry to be taken a ssolely pistol armed.

OK - I'll sort out an amendment on this basis.

Even as late as Dunbar one regiment is recorded as remining pistol armed. I don't have it to hand but Ican look up the name of the reigiment if you want.
John

Useful for list notes I suspect.

[marshalney2000]

David Leslies own regiment is the one I have found specifically mentioned as still retaining their firearms and not goin gover to lances.
John