Slitherine

Page 14, German States Starter Army

Landsknechte. Each GBG only adds up to 12 bases even though it says 'Each comprising 14 bases'. as 12 or 14 is valid, please advise which it is.

Date of Pinkie is wrong in the Later Henrician list

Nik has a problem with his Pinkie...

Page 43. Early Henrician English.

'There must be more billmen bases in an army than longbowmen bases.' The starter army on the same page violates this.

Even in FoG AM, starter armies don't necessarily meet all requirements.

Page 55, Border Reivers

Raider bodyguard/ Only Before 1540/ Bases per BG 4-6/ Total bases 0-4. Should it be Total bases 0-6 (which would need to apply to all Raider bodyguard BGs because of how the list is written) or should it be Bases per BG 4 (as for the other Raider bodyguard options)?

Page 109, Early 80 Years' War Dutch

Field Fortifications has Points per base cost of - when it should read 3.

Page 10, Maximilian Imperial

Mounted Crossbowmen Bases per BG 4-6, Total bases 0-4. Which is correct?

Page 22, Italian Wars French

Lansquenets and Lansquenet arquebusiers. There is no evidence that I have ever seen that the French hired or used Lansquenets in 1521-2. These dates should be excluded. It is important because in 1522 in theory you could have Swiss and Lansquenets in the same army (I can't see why but...) and because of the 'bad war' (Schlechten Krieg) they would not be in the same army until after 1522.

Page 15, German States.

Landsknecht Verlorne Haufen: Total bases reads '0-1 BG per 2 Landskechte pike BGs'. Landskechte should be spelt Landsknechte.

The same error occurs on page 17 in the German States Allies list.

Page 16, German States

Mounted Crossbowmen Bases per BG 4-6, Total bases 0-4. Which is correct?

Page 25, Italian Wars French Allies.

Lansquenets, HF, Unarmoured, Heavy Weapon line has the values for the 4 columns Impact, Close Combat, Points per base, and Bases per BG shitfted one column to the left.

Page 29, Trastamara Spanish Allies.

Guardias de Castilla Gendarmes Bases per BG 4-6, Total bases 0-4. Which is correct?

Page 34, Italian States

Milanese allies ... Italian States. I presume that this is the Italian States Allies Milan option.

Page 34, Italian States Allies

This list has Sub-commanders (in addition to Allied commander). I presume that this is an error with the copy process and the Sub-commanders should be removed.

Page 34, Italian States Allies

Famiglia di casa and famiglia fuori casa, Bases per BG 4-6, Total bases 0-4. Which is correct?

timmy1 wrote:Page 34, Italian States Allies

Famiglia di casa and famiglia fuori casa, Bases per BG 4-6, Total bases 0-4. Which is correct?

Assuming this isn't a rhetorical question, then 4 is always going to be correct.

The ally lists are a cut down version of the main lists, and regretably the error of not changing the BG size seems to continue to get through the proof-reading stage fairly frequently despite efforts to the contrary.

Of course these will be added to the errata.

Richard

Thank you. The question was not rhetorical.

Many thanks for this Timmy, keep up the good work.

timmy1 wrote:Page 22, Italian Wars French

Lansquenets and Lansquenet arquebusiers. There is no evidence that I have ever seen that the French hired or used Lansquenets in 1521-2. These dates should be excluded. It is important because in 1522 in theory you could have Swiss and Lansquenets in the same army (I can't see why but...) and because of the 'bad war' (Schlechten Krieg) they would not be in the same army until after 1522.

Given that the Black Band was used in 1515 and in 1525 (and, reformed, in 1528), its not far fetched to assume that the French army of 1521/22 had access to Landsknechts, too. He most likely kept the core of the Black Bands in his service - at least their leaders were recognized and despised by the other Landsknechts as in French service at Pavia.

The french army that invaded Navarra under Lesparre had some 6000 soldiers of undefined nationality (the other half being from Gascoin). At the same time La Marck assembled an army at Luxemburg, and its hard to believe that there were no Landsknechts among them (the army was later dissolved before action).
Later this year Francois planned more campaigns, with 8000 Swiss and 6000 Gascoin going to Italy while Bonnivet got 6000 Landsknechts for his army in the Guyenne. He also planned his own army for defense against an invasion by Charles with 3000 Lances, 30000 Infantry (including 12000 Swiss). No specific mention of Landsknechts here, but its not unreasonable to assume that contingents did exist (Franz I, by Rene Guerdan, p130).

So Landsknechts are only confirmed for the army in the Guyenne, but at several other occasions armies were assembled that may have included Landsknecht contingents. I agree, however, that in this period no major engangement saw Landsknechts and Swiss on the same side. Bicocca certainly did not better the relationship between Reisläufer and Landsknechte, though, and after 22 we do see both in French armies - certainly in 1525 and 1528.

In short: I have no problems with allowing for both in the same army. Not seeing both together in 21/22 is probably more to circumstances then any political decision or result of their rivalry.


What I do miss is the option for French archers in the early part of the period. I remember that some Archers were depicted in prints for the campaign of 1495, and even the early Maximilian army has the option to field Ordonannce archers.

I believed that the planned army for Guyenne in 1522 was never assembled, I may have misread that. Agree for the others it is possible that they WERE Landsknechts, just can't see them reported as such in the sources. Again Bande Negra MAY have been Landsknechts but no evidence I have seen states that they WERE.

I think we agree Swiss and Landsknechts were not in the same Italian Wars French army in any campaign in 1521 / 1522.