Scots Royalists

[nikgaukroger]

Thanks to John for drafting this list

I would like to point out that unlike you experienced men of the world I am an army list virgin so hope you will be gentle with me.
You will see that I have avoided the temptation to create super troops with all but one unit being average or worse. I have accepted the reality that they won through the faults of their opponents rather than any elite status. The units I have struggled over most are the Irish regiments where they are not indicated as the screaming fanatics of legend but rather as a pike and shot unit. I am however mindful that they did have an edge even against the good covenanting regiments so I have tweaked them slightly. I am also mindful of the several examples of Montrose asking them to set aside their pikes and muskets and charge in with their swords and this is also reflected.
The area I need to look at more closely again are the total number of bases to ensure that they accurately reflect the composition and structure of different troop types at different times. Any advice you have on this or any other would be gratefully received.

I think the first area I'd flag for discussion is, inevitably, the Irish Brigade - they were always going to be problematic I think.

John's suggestion is Musket, Impact Foot, Swordsmen for the shot and Pikemen for, surprise, surprise, the pikemen. All graded Average.

My first impression is that this is potentially too powerful - the old FoG bugbear of 3 full capabilities.

When the C17th French were first discussed we were worried about letting them be Musket, Impact Foot with no melee capability. What we decided there was that as their tactical doctrine (if you like) was to close to combat - a prest - we would give them Musket* instead of Musket so that if they tried to stand and shoot it out with contemporaries they would be at a disadvantage so there was an incentive on the player to get stuck in. In reality, of course, this is a bit of a fudge, justifiable in getting the correct effect for the army, as there is no evidence that French musketry in this period was weaker than its enemies.

So I think we need to look at the Irish to see what their tactical doctrine was and if they should be more like the French. Alternatively if a lot of their enemies are going to be Poor quality making the Irish a conventional pike & shot BG but making them Superior may be an alternative as they should run over Poor troops.

I assume that the Swordsmen goes in there for the times you refer to when they dropped their usual weapons and charged in with just swords. As this appears to be alternative weaponry rather than in addition to normal behaviour (if you see what I mean) it may be batter to have alternative classification to cover this. Some idea of when it happened would be useful - all I have that covers this srmy is the Osprey on Auldearn which whilst, I think, is quite good covers quite a lot briefly.

[marshalney2000]

I am not surprised that the irish Brigade is the main discussion point as this brigade together with the Gordon Horse were the two areas I spent most time on. (At the end of the day the Gordon Horse were rated as simply average and with the same tactics as Covenanting Horse because until their defection to Montrose that was what they were).
Now to the Irish. Musket *, I think would not be accurate as there are many examples where they stood toe to toe with the enemy and defeated them with firepower. the first example of this is tippermuir where, contrary to the myth that they were short of amunition and did a highland charge, they in fact beat the opposition in a stand up firefight. At Aberdeen a few weeks later, they opened their ranks to let Covenanting cavalry go through before turning and firing into their rear. Later in the same battle they engaged in a lengthy firefight as part of the main assault beofre Montrose ordered them to lay aside their pikes and muskets and charge in with sword and dirk which broke the enemy. This happened again at Alford where they dropped their main weaponry and joine din a cavalry fight helpin gthe Gordon Horse defeat the opposition cavlr yin what had been a stalemate up to that point.
While both of the above were against troops who could be described as poor, the same could not be said of Auldearn where the Irish fought a savage battle against Campbell of Lawers who were a veteran regiment. The combat seems to be a mixture of hand to hand and musketry.
I accept your concerns on the Irish but if you look at 1644 they are the real strength of the army but you can only from memory have 24 of them and no cavalry. When you move into 1645, the numbers drop to 18 but cavalry of mixed quality are allowed.
I decided against superior because I did not see them superior in morale etc to say Campbell of Lawers but I think they had more flexibility in their fighting style and their musketeers more keen to mix it. They may be quite good but are not cheap either.
I would emphasise I am not trying to desperately protect my list in this post but rather explain some of my thinking and the process I went through.
Just got a few more books on Montrose and his army from a friend and am off to read them to see if I can find anymore relevant information.
John
ps the Osprey book on Auldearn is one of the better books of its type.

[marshalney2000]

Just to muddy the waters further, I have been looking at an account of Inverlochy where it describes the two Irish Brigade regiments as forming in three ranks rather than the normal 6 as the their line was much shorter than the more numerous Covenanter regiments facing them. They took heavy fire during their advance but halted a mere few paces away from the opposing line ( so close it "fyred their beards")before firing by a single salvee at which point they fell on the enemy with a vicious physical assault. I would caution however that this is the only account I can find of them firing by this method but thought it worth flagging up. It certainly gives us another option particularly as many Scots and Irish will have served with Gustavus and would have been familiar with the salvee firing process.
John

[nikgaukroger]

Now to the Irish. Musket *, I think would not be accurate as there are many examples where they stood toe to toe with the enemy and defeated them with firepower. the first example of this is tippermuir where, contrary to the myth that they were short of amunition and did a highland charge, they in fact beat the opposition in a stand up firefight. At Aberdeen a few weeks later, they opened their ranks to let Covenanting cavalry go through before turning and firing into their rear.

I mentioned Musket* as a way we incentivise the French to close to hand to hand comabt which appears to have been what they did rather than a lower shooting ability for which there is no evidence - it is getting the feel of the army right. If the Irish brigade fought pretty much as a standard pike and shot type this would not be approrpiate for them but I want to be certain of how they operated before discarding it.

I take it that you don't think that they were hand to hand focused and behaved in a fairly normal pike and shot manner - i.e. approach, shoot for a bit and then close to hand to hand combat.

Later in the same battle they engaged in a lengthy firefight as part of the main assault beofre Montrose ordered them to lay aside their pikes and muskets and charge in with sword and dirk which broke the enemy. This happened again at Alford where they dropped their main weaponry and joine din a cavalry fight helpin gthe Gordon Horse defeat the opposition cavlr yin what had been a stalemate up to that point.

This is where we run into classification problems as by dropping their other weapons they change their behaviour significantly. This really isn't covered by the FoG mechanisms/classifications as it sounds like they need to be 2 different troop classifications in the same battle - start off pike & shot and end up something that may be more like Impact Foot, Swordsmen.

However, if these were the last actions in a battle to finish an enemy off it could well be fudged as them just counting as a normal pike and shot type charging a pre-weakened enemy.

While both of the above were against troops who could be described as poor, the same could not be said of Auldearn where the Irish fought a savage battle against Campbell of Lawers who were a veteran regiment. The combat seems to be a mixture of hand to hand and musketry.

Which is pretty typical of pike and shot units of the time - we have to judge whether their hand to hand was in fact anything special and if so what is the best way to classify it.

I accept your concerns on the Irish but if you look at 1644 they are the real strength of the army but you can only from memory have 24 of them and no cavalry. When you move into 1645, the numbers drop to 18 but cavalry of mixed quality are allowed.
I decided against superior because I did not see them superior in morale etc to say Campbell of Lawers but I think they had more flexibility in their fighting style and their musketeers more keen to mix it. They may be quite good but are not cheap either.

I am wondering if making them Superior would be a way of avoiding a problem classification. BTW if Campbell of Lawers regiment were exception in the Covenanter army I am happy for them to have a Superior BG.

[nikgaukroger]

Just to muddy the waters further, I have been looking at an account of Inverlochy where it describes the two Irish Brigade regiments as forming in three ranks rather than the normal 6 as the their line was much shorter than the more numerous Covenanter regiments facing them. They took heavy fire during their advance but halted a mere few paces away from the opposing line ( so close it "fyred their beards")before firing by a single salvee at which point they fell on the enemy with a vicious physical assault. I would caution however that this is the only account I can find of them firing by this method but thought it worth flagging up. It certainly gives us another option particularly as many Scots and Irish will have served with Gustavus and would have been familiar with the salvee firing process.
John

By this time quite a few units are recorded as using a salvo from time to time - Royalists at Cheriton or Naseby for example, in the latter falling on to the NMA straight after. At the moment I'm keeping Salvo for those who did it routinely otherwise nearly all mid-C17th armies would have it as an option

Of course it is always available if we think it best fits anyone.

[marshalney2000]

I certainly would not be averse to one superior unit in the Covenant army as there are examples of a unit stepping to the fore and this was certainly Campbell of Lawers at Auldearn where it was pretty much wiped out at the end. Interestingly it was reformed and pretty much wiped out again in the final stages of Dunbar although some historians claim that at the latter battle it was confused with another unit with lawers actually escaping anihilation.
As for other superior units I wondered about the Strathbogie Regiment on the Royalist side who are always mentioned as being superior performers at all the battles in 1645.
Coming back to the Irish, the classification is a real problem with superior certainly being the easy option but still not sure if the right one. Does RBS have any views?
I will also probably add a 0- 4 element Moss troopers unit to the Royalist army and allow this even in 1644 as there are mentions of such a unit which the above name being applied. This was not present at Tippermuir but was at Aberdeen and during the various ramblings of the Fyfie campaign.
By way of a useless piece of Trivia, I was actually married in Tibbermore (Tippermuir ) church which was ther eat the time of the battle and indeed Montrose stopped in the Manse next door for refreshment. The Irish were no doubt in the church making off with the church plate!!
John

[rbodleyscott]

Coming back to the Irish, the classification is a real problem with superior certainly being the easy option but still not sure if the right one. Does RBS have any views?

Much the same as Nik really. Triple capability is really a non-starter for reasons of policy. It is easy to seduce oneself into make super troops when one is trying to make a unit stand out from others in its milieu. Stepping back a bit from the details of Scottish ECW warfare, however, it doesn't really seem likely that the Irish Brigade had the best foot capabilities in the entire Renaissance period - which they would have if graded as musket, impact foot, swordsmen.

[marshalney2000]

Ok I am convinced by your arguments. I obviously am not so seeped in the previous discussions etc you have gone through previpously on triple arming etc. it certainly was not my intention to create a super trooper henc ethe non use of superior rating.
In view of your comments I think we may have to go back to superior as an option. Could this be linked with either swordsmen or impact?
John

[nikgaukroger]

In view of your comments I think we may have to go back to superior as an option. Could this be linked with either swordsmen or impact?
John

Having the shot component as Musket, -, Swordsmen has crossed my mind.

No Impact Foot capability would give them an encourage ment to engage in a fire fight to soften up the enemy (rather than the effect of their impact) and then, assuming I have my PoAs correct , the Swordsmen would give them a + in melee.

It would make them an unusual classification as well

Possibly no need for them to be Superior in this case to avoid the mythology trap with these troops.

How does that sound?

Richard, any issues?

[rbodleyscott]

In view of your comments I think we may have to go back to superior as an option. Could this be linked with either swordsmen or impact?
John

Having the shot component as Musket, -, Swordsmen has crossed my mind.

No Impact Foot capability would give them an encourage ment to engage in a fire fight to soften up the enemy (rather than the effect of their impact) and then, assuming I have my PoAs correct , the Swordsmen would give them a + in melee.

It would make them an unusual classification as well

Possibly no need for them to be Superior in this case to avoid the mythology trap with these troops.

How does that sound?

Richard, any issues?

It would only give them a + in melee if the enemy pike/shot are unsteady.

My first thought was that it would give them ++ vs enemy mounted, but in fact it wouldn't because of the "any one of" formulation.

[nikgaukroger]

It would only give them a + in melee if the enemy pike/shot are unsteady.

That is what I was getting at but missed out the important bit

[marshalney2000]

I am happy with with the musket, -, sword classification but in view of the slight advantage if any!!! this provides in a toe to toe shootout with average foot, I wonder if we need to keep the superior. These troops were the mainstay of the Royalist victories in 1644 (where no cavalry were available to Montrose) and continued to play a major role in every battle in 1645. These guys were principally veterans of the TYW and the war in Ireland and seem to have been recognised by their contempories as troops to be reckoned with. When I proposed them as triple armed ( see I am catching up with the terminology) I thought superior was over the top but with only a swordsmen differential, I think we need the superior. This is also relevant if Nik considers upgrading a maximum of one covenanting unit to superior whether this be Campbell of Lawers or another.
In summary it seems to me we have two unit types as superiors in the Roylaist Army,namely the Irish in 1644 and 1645 and the Strathbogie regiment in 1645 only. In fact the number of superior bases does not increase as the Irish drop from 24 in 1644 to 18 in 1645 while the Strathbogie regiment would only be 0 to 6 bases.
John

[marshalney2000]

Nice quote on the Irish Brigade which are described when entering Aberdeen in 1644 as being," 1500 Irishis, brocht up in West Flanders, expert soldiouris, with ane yeiris pay." Translations are available for a small fee.
John

[nikgaukroger]

Some of the horse were drafted as Pistol, Light Lance, Pistol - since then I think we have come to the conclusion that Lancers were sans pistols so how should these guys be classified.

Don't ask why I edited them to Pistol, Light Lance, Swordsmen ...

[marshalney2000]

Sorry Nik not sure what you are referring to. Is it the Moss troopers in Montroses army? If so I would have seen them as the same as the Moss troopers in the Covenanting army. These would be allowed in both 1644 and 1645. If we wanted to be 100% accurate they were not at Tippermuir but were at Aberdeen a few weeks later led by a relative of Montrose, Pat Graham from memory.
Just while I have it in my mind is it your intention to ignore the special covenant force at Philiphaugh?
John

[nikgaukroger]

Sorry Nik not sure what you are referring to. Is it the Moss troopers in Montroses army? If so I would have seen them as the same as the Moss troopers in the Covenanting army. These would be allowed in both 1644 and 1645. If we wanted to be 100% accurate they were not at Tippermuir but were at Aberdeen a few weeks later led by a relative of Montrose, Pat Graham from memory.

It is the normal horse who are in the current draft.

Just while I have it in my mind is it your intention to ignore the special covenant force at Philiphaugh?
John

Not got around to considering it. Feel free to post a suggestion.

[marshalney2000]

Nik,I see where you are coming from now. In fact the number of lancers in the Royalist army is set deliberately small as they are sort of mentioned as existing in a sort of passing way. Not suprisingly therefore there is not a lot of info as to the extent of their equipment. On the basis that many of them would be defectors, I would not make them any different from what the final classification of the Covenanter lancers is decided as.
Re Philphaugh leave this with me and I will come back with a suggestion or two.
John