Slitherine

EDIT: Version 2 now available . . .

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/154 ... 20PWv2.zip

The French wikipedia article is an identical version of the English wikipedia article. The Spanish wikipedia version mentions that de Cordoba led only part of his available troops (which the wikipedia lists in total) into this action.

The Spanish wikipedia provides the following Spanish OOB at Garigliano:

D'Alviano - 3,000 troops.

Then, the "Central corps, divided in three parts": Diego Garcia de Paredes and Pedro Navarro - 3,500 rodeleros (?) and arquebusiers.

Followed by the "heavy cavalry" (30 jinetes) and the light cavalry (200 jinetes, of Prospero Colonna,

and finally the Great Captain (Cordoba) with 2,000 German "lansquenetes" (lancers or spearmen?).

Source: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batalla_de ... ano_(1503)

As you probably already read in the English wiki version, only the 300 French of the Suio garrison are mentioned. And the brave french knight who singlehandedly fought off 200 Spaniards.

The Spanish wiki article is probably derived from an Italian account of the battle that is linked at the bottom of the Spanish wiki version.

Good luck!

'lansquenetes' are landsknechte, german mercenary pikemen.

ZeaBed wrote:The French wikipedia article is an identical version of the English wikipedia article. The Spanish wikipedia version mentions that de Cordoba led only part of his available troops (which the wikipedia lists in total) into this action.

The Spanish wikipedia provides the following Spanish OOB at Garigliano:

D'Alviano - 3,000 troops.

Then, the "Central corps, divided in three parts": Diego Garcia de Paredes and Pedro Navarro - 3,500 rodeleros (?) and arquebusiers.

Followed by the "heavy cavalry" (30 jinetes) and the light cavalry (200 jinetes, of Prospero Colonna,

and finally the Great Captain (Cordoba) with 2,000 German "lansquenetes" (lancers or spearmen?).

Source: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batalla_de ... ano_(1503)

Thanks very much, Zeabed. "Rodeleros" are swordsmen (or sword and buckler men). Jinetes were really skirmisher cavalry although they could be armoured and they were particularly effective in ths battle apparently. I have the FOG book "Trade and Treachery" and it has a section for the "Trastamara Spanish". It talks about landsknecht mercenaries being available from 1500 so maybe the infantry of de Cordoba's army was a mixture of Spanish and German soldiers. These landsknechts are designated as "average HF armoured pikemen" but we are unable to edit the pikemen in that way in the scenario editor at the moment. The Trastamara pikemen are classified in he same way while the rodeleros are classed as "superior". De Paredes and Navarro are new names to me - I have Andrade, Mendoza and Orsini for one wing of the Spanish army, de Cordoba and d'Alviano for the flanking contingent. According to the FOG book the Spanish had passed ordenanzas from the mid-1490s to modernise their army. In 1503 (the year that Garigliano occurs) an ordenanza was passed to institute the colunela (one third pikemen, one-third arquebusiers, one-third sword and buckler men) but I doubt it is correct to include that formation in this battle.

As you probably already read in the English wiki version, only the 300 French of the Suio garrison are mentioned. And the brave french knight who singlehandedly fought off 200 Spaniards.

The Spanish wiki article is probably derived from an Italian account of the battle that is linked at the bottom of the Spanish wiki version.

Good luck!

Presumably the French army was comprised of a mixture of French, Italian and Swiss troops. They were very poorly led and a lot of the army was ill (they were camped in marsh land). The FOG book has the French contingent as "poor HF armoured" pikemen, aventuriers (LF skirmisher crossbowmen), artillery and gendarmes. Presumably, the Italians supplied gendarmes (knights), mounted crossbowmen and maybe some arquebusiers. The Swiss would have been mainly pikemen with some arquebusiers and crossbowmen, I expect.

Gday Pete
Cant wait to have a crack at this one Be interesting to see those Arquebusiers in action again and no doubt it will be another masterpiece from you mate

Turk1964 wrote:Gday Pete
Cant wait to have a crack at this one Be interesting to see those Arquebusiers in action again and no doubt it will be another masterpiece from you mate

I'll put it on later today, Mark. I have just done a play test and it certainly has quite a bit going for it, I think. The map is really interesting. Usual password, although I will be a bit slow as I am working the next five days.

Thanks Pete will check it out directly and no problems with slow play.

Obsolete post.

In the Spanish language, jinetes simply refers to a man riding a horse. I couldn't tell in the referenced article if the term was used generically or specifically to identify a type of cavalry. But I suspect there may have been little variation among Spanish cavalry in Italy within that era, so I'm sure that you have the correct take on this. Too bad there was no further OOB particulars than what were given in those articles.

That was fast scenario-building, Pete. Thanks.

I think these articles might help a bit, Zeabed . . .

http://www.xenophongroup.com/EMW/article001.htm

http://www.xenophongroup.com/EMW/article002.htm

http://www.xenophongroup.com/EMW/article004.htm

http://durecu.blogspot.co.uk/

The xenophongroup is a great site and new to me! Thanks for the link.

I like this definition, which answers my questions on the subject: "The Spanish word jinete means horseman or rider, but during the period of the reconquista and the Italian Wars it referred also to the highly skilled Spanish light cavalrymen who troubled the French so much in the "small war" that was the basis of Gonzalo's strategy."

Played a rather tentative solitaire game and it really gave me a 'Renaissance' feeling about the battle. It also reflected well the cramped and difficult conditions of the terrain. And for playability it was exciting and varied. I think you have another winner.

Thanks very much, Zeabed. I have found a typo in the scenario. The Spanish pikemen have some units labelled "Swiss pikemen" in their ranks. They should all be Spanish pikemen. The other details of those units are correct. I am not sure if I have got the deployment position of the French army quite right. I might shift them a bit closer to the sea. The Spanish side have a significant points advantage in the scenario but most of that is leadership points (rather than army unit points) to reflect the poor leadership of the French at that battle.

stockwellpete wrote:Thanks very much, Zeabed. I have found a typo in the scenario. The Spanish pikemen have some units labelled "Swiss pikemen" in their ranks. They should all be Spanish pikemen. The other details of those units are correct. I am not sure if I have got the deployment position of the French army quite right. I might shift them a bit closer to the sea. The Spanish side have a significant points advantage in the scenario but most of that is leadership points (rather than army unit points) to reflect the poor leadership of the French at that battle.

I've solitaired it twice, so any insight is limited by the constraints of this rather onanistic style of play, but it's obvious that the advantage is clearly with the Spanish, as it famously was in the historical battle. I don't see how that can be helped without forsaking the historical fundamentals altogether, and that would go against the grain. But perhaps, as you've mentioned, nudging the historically unclear positioning of the French and other nuances could inch the balance scale forward just a bit. It's worth taking all this time on this scenario as it involves thinking that will be useful for any future Renaissance scenarios.

tHANKS for the scenario.

Pete, I was just thinking that your design innovations with the arquebusiers, etc., could be an improvement too if adapted to the Mughal shooters in my First Battle of Panipat (1526) scenario. Then again, although that battle technically occurred in what is known in Europe as the Renaissance era, I'm not sure how it could be adapted to the Mughals in India at that time. But it all shows how envelope-pushing efforts such as Garigliano could certainly benefit future possible iterations of the FoG engine and OOBs.

ZeaBed wrote:I've solitaired it twice, so any insight is limited by the constraints of this rather onanistic style of play, but it's obvious that the advantage is clearly with the Spanish, as it famously was in the historical battle. I don't see how that can be helped without forsaking the historical fundamentals altogether, and that would go against the grain. But perhaps, as you've mentioned, nudging the historically unclear positioning of the French and other nuances could inch the balance scale forward just a bit. It's worth taking all this time on this scenario as it involves thinking that will be useful for any future Renaissance scenarios.

This is probably one of those scenarios that will work well as a paired game so the imbalance between the armies can, in a sense, be mitigated in that way. I am toying with the idea of deploying the French as if they were in camp rather than having them ready for the battle as they are now. The Spanish attack did come very early in the morning after a flanking march by one half of their army that was not discovered. I am finding both this scenario and Seminara to be fascinating so I will be spending more time on them next week - and there were other battles in Italy at this time too, including another one at Seminara so I will be investigating these too. There are already versions of Fornovo and Cerignola by other people available but I quite fancy getting my grubby mits on them as well.

Good point about the French camp situation. Both the Spanish and Italian accounts that I mentioned earlier both indicate that the French were unprepared and many were sick. Of course that could skew the balance even more in favor of the spaniards. An interesting scenario indeed and I believe it's good to be able to have as many versions of a battle as there are views and opinions about it. It's not that FoG is going to run out of space. There's no either/or with digital technology as any photographer would say who's no longer concerned he's going to run out of film. If in doubt make a new version. That's part of the fun and why we have a game editor included in the game.

ZeaBed wrote:Pete, I was just thinking that your design innovations with the arquebusiers, etc., could be an improvement too if adapted to the Mughal shooters in my First Battle of Panipat (1526) scenario. Then again, although that battle technically occurred in what is known in Europe as the Renaissance era, I'm not sure how it could be adapted to the Mughals in India at that time. But it all shows how envelope-pushing efforts such as Garigliano could certainly benefit future possible iterations of the FoG engine and OOBs.

The problem with the arquebusiers, as I see it, is that the range of 2 hexes is probably correct, so if they are to be separate MF units they are not going to get many shots and they are going to be extremely vulnerable in the open (I mean as the game stands now). To be absolutely accurate the handgunner range should only be one hex but that, of course, wouldn't work in the game. By putting arquebusiers at LF impact foot their position improves because they can still evade, but if they are holding certain types of terrain they can hold against pikemen or cavalry, at least initially they can and that gives time for other troops to support them.

The other thing is that as the 16thC progresses and new formations like the Spanish tercio emerge, it seems to me at the moment that arquebusiers will often be best represented by incorporating them into pike units by using the ranged weapons category that is available. Of course, in some battles, arquebusiers were deployed separately as well e.g. Pavia 1525.

If we eventually had a new unit in the DAG called "arquebusier" maybe its firing power would be 3 or 4 times that of the handgun and maybe it could be set so as to cause many more "disruptions" - and that might allow it to prosper a bit more on the open battlefield just as MF without the "impact foot" designation (which is just a temporary fix anyway). And of course we would still need to be able to put "arqebuses" in the ranged weapon field for tercio-like formations.

I will have a look at Panipat again next week to see if the new unit could work in that scenario too.

Thanks for the clear and well-thought out answer. I think you really nailed that firearms issue.