Covenanting Cavalry
Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 11:46 am
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
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
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 
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.