early english royalists artillery

clogs4444 · Post by **clogs4444** » Fri Jan 07, 2011 11:52 pm

I have just bought the rules.

Questions

1. Why do the early royalists only have 0-2 art bases max, when the early parliamentarians have 0-4?
In the early years, the king had his on factory armours and out number the parliamentarians 3 to 1 in production.

2) Why do the early royalists Pike have no armour?
Alot of troops came back from europe rich from the wars there, so why not the same as early
parliamentarians?

3) The layout of the rules and army lists are excellant, but does anyone have a PDF copy of the quick refernce sheets ( so i dont break the back binding of my new rule set)?

4) Does anyone have a PDF full turn sequence sheets?

Well I cant wait for my first battle using my 28mm early royalists:)

Thanks for your help

Dave

deadtorius · Post by **deadtorius** » Sat Jan 08, 2011 12:57 am

Actually parliament held most of the armies depots as far as armour and arms went. The King had to take some of the royal depots by force as their commanders decided to side with parliament. After he captured Oxford he finally had access to the foundry's and was able to start getting more muskets for part of his army.
I do recall reading about one battle where the Royalists had to ask a depot commander for some guns, promising to return them after the battle. The next time they fought parliament, parliament got to the depot first and acquired the same guns to use against the Royalists. So actually the King was short on firearms and artillery, Parliament had access to arms armour and artillery so they had more. Same reason why the Royalists do not get cuirassiers but parliament does.

As for QRS PDF, there is none at present. RBS claims they are working on one at present but no release date has been specified.

DanielS · Post by **DanielS** » Sat Jan 08, 2011 8:29 am

2) Why do the early royalists Pike have no armour?
Alot of troops came back from europe rich from the wars there, so why not the same as early
parliamentarians?

Actually most troops died poor in disease ridden camps in Germany, and even if they returned home it is doubtfull that any but a few hade any kind of wealth with them. Armour was either the property of the army in which they served or if privately owned would be sold for cash before returning home to England. And of course the period of the TYW before the English & Scots troops were disbanded and returned home in 1638-1639 were the period which saw the least use of armour.

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Sat Jan 08, 2011 9:49 am

deadtorius wrote:Actually parliament held most of the armies depots as far as armour and arms went. The King had to take some of the royal depots by force as their commanders decided to side with parliament. After he captured Oxford he finally had access to the foundry's and was able to start getting more muskets for part of his army.
I do recall reading about one battle where the Royalists had to ask a depot commander for some guns, promising to return them after the battle. The next time they fought parliament, parliament got to the depot first and acquired the same guns to use against the Royalists. So actually the King was short on firearms and artillery, Parliament had access to arms armour and artillery so they had more. Same reason why the Royalists do not get cuirassiers but parliament does.

Indeed - the sources all agree that the King's forces were badly equipped during the first part of the war compared to the Parliamentarian forces. In the run up to the outbreak of the civil war Parliament had been sorting out an army for Ireland and made sure it was in control of as much of the equipment for that as possible in case there was civil conflict. There is also the case of the governor of Hull, which was the arsenal where much equipment from the Bishops Wars had been stored, refusing to allow the King access.

The real change came with the capture of Bristol in July 1643.