Slitherine

Posted: **Sun Aug 08, 2010 11:01 am**

Richard, thank you for your comments. My replies are as follows:
Introduction - yes that paragraph you highlighted is a bit of a mish mash - I will rewrite and submit again.
Worshipers and followers - yes warriors is probably best as a classification. I was rather seduced by the mob appearance of this lot.
John

Posted: **Mon Aug 09, 2010 4:13 pm**

Attached is an amended paragraph to replace that Richard made comment on.
Other than an abortive attempt by a large Covenanting force to march on Edinburgh, the first action took place at Drumclog in 1679. John Graham of Claverhouse (soon to be immortalized as Bonnie Dundee, but already known by the Coveanters as "Bluidy Clavers" as result of his enforcement activities in Scotland) decided to break up a large Covenenting meeting. One eye witness recorded them as being some 9,000 strong. Graham, in a manner reminiscent of Custer at the Little Big Horn some 200 hundred years, appeared to be more concerned about the Covenanters escaping than what would happen if they resisted. Graham had in fact only one hundred and twenty dragoons but seemed buoyed by the fact that in the approach to Drumclog a handful of dragoon in skirmish order had dispersed a battalion of Covenanters. The main body of Covenanters surged forward singing psalms. Graham at this point appears to have realised the serious position he was in and tried to negotiate. The Covenanters were however in no mood for compromise and in the brief action that ensued the dragoons were put to rout. Graham escaped with his life although his standard bearer was virtually torn limb from limb when the Covenanters mistook him for Graham. While government losses were only ten killed, the victory inspired the Covenanters who began to gather in even larger numbers."

Posted: **Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:08 pm**

Latest draft still needs to be updated by the replacement wording included in my posting above as this clears up Richard's queries.
John

Posted: **Wed Sep 29, 2010 9:32 am**

I must say that I would be much happier if the "Musketeer" BGs were graded as Musket*. Can full Musket capability really be justified? Musket* also gives the army more flavour.

Calling them "Musketeers" also seems a bit bizarre.

I would suggest changing their designation to "Well-armed devoted male worshippers" and giving them Musket* capability.

The skirmishers can stay as they are I suppose. (Though were all the firearms muskets? If some had fowling pieces, pistols etc., one could make a case for classifying them as Arquebus).

I am concerned that we will be making ourselves look a bit silly if we classify a mob as if it was a real army.

(Musket* MF and Arquebus LF are not all that bad either)

Posted: **Wed Sep 29, 2010 1:52 pm**

John wrote:I am happy with the revised naming of these musket armed units.

John wrote:The units represent groups of men who were all armed with musket and it would seem strange then tho classify them as being short of this weapon. I can find no evidence that the musket armed troops were mixed with any other weaponry in mixed units. At Bothwell bridge it was the musket armed units who were at the fore front of the fight at the bridge.
The musket units are not that numerous in any case in comparison with the other less well armed ( even unarmed units )which are required. I do not think they will become an uber army on the basis of a few musket units.
John

Posted: **Wed Sep 29, 2010 1:53 pm**

I take your point, but were they in "units" at all? If not, then making them Musket* enhances their disorganisation.

Posted: **Wed Sep 29, 2010 1:54 pm**

John wrote:I think we need to remember that the forces in this conflict are in the bottom end of the scale and that musketeer groupings are not regiments but small companies of like armed individuals banded together into at best a company under a strong civilian or indeed clerical leader. If we wanted to class them as regiments the we would have to group them as something like hw musket star which I think gives the wrong flavour of the army composition. At Bothwell the musketeers although outnumbered gave a good account of themselves and were the stars of the army. It was once the superior government forces got across the bridge and got stuck into the rest of the army that things went wrong. Still musket for me as in total they will form a small part of the army and thereby create the overall weakness that you wish to portray.

Posted: **Wed Sep 29, 2010 1:55 pm**

Nik wrote:I must admit I've put some troops in as Musket* in the Later Venetian
Colonial list on the basis that Musket would make them too good rather
than on any actual equipment level basis.

I think Richard has a point that we may attract ridicule (or more
ridicule as we're going to get some whatever ) if we have units in
a mob type army outshooting their regular opponents.

This was my point. Do we really think these unorganised groups with muskets could lay down the same localised firepower as a properly trained military unit. It just isn't plausible.

So I suggest Musket* to represent this relative inefficiency - the alternative would be to rate them Poor, but we don't want to do that because their morale was good.

(Even as Musket* they will deliver greater firepower at long range, and equal at short range, to an English 2 pike and 4 shot regiment).

Don't get hung up on definitions John, we can use Musket* for whatever we want if it gets the right effect. If it does not follow the definition in the rule book, we can explain the classification in the list blurb.

Posted: **Wed Sep 29, 2010 2:06 pm**

I would add that (in my view) we should be thinking of this list as an interesting historical opponent for the Restoration British, and not as a potential tournament-worthy army.

It does not have to be tournament viable. It does have to give a realistic historical refight.

Posted: **Wed Sep 29, 2010 2:48 pm**

OK I will go with this but don't blame me when some black robed Covenanters pay you both a visit one dark night. Both of you have clearly branded yourselves ungodly beings outside God's only true church.
I was certainly not looking to brand this army a tournament tiger and would use it as you suggest along side my Restoration Scots government forces.
John

Posted: **Mon Oct 04, 2010 8:25 am**

Also, I really think we must limit the LF to 0-12. We have limited them in most other "rebel" type armies.

Posted: **Mon Oct 04, 2010 9:55 am**

No problem with that.
John

Slitherine

Covenanting Rebels

Covenanting Rebels