Further thoughts on Blore Heath

[Dave Knight]

Haigh in The Military camapigns of the Wars of the Roses states that the Yorkists 'strengthened their position by digging a trench to their rear and fixing stakes to their front'

The trench makes no sense to me, unless thay were concened that part of the enemy force may have somehow got around their position and might attack them from the rear.

I tend to think of stakes as being used to protect archers but given that the Lancastrians were mainly mounted (and outnumbered them 2:1) I suppose they could have felt the need toprotect their whole front?  There was a wood to their rear for the raw materials.

The stakes may imply that the archers expected to be part of the front line defence.  In most battles they seem to have shot off their arrows, retreated behind their more heavily armoured and armed colleagues and then  fought hand to hand in a supporting role.  In a purely defensive battle with some protection from field defences they may have been expected to hold their ground?

Any observations? 

For wargaming purposes I am currrently thinking of ignoring the ditch, having a line of stakes covering the full frontage of the position and interspersing units of archers with units of men at arms and billmen.

I am not totally convinced that this is realistic

[Duncan Head]

They assembled on foot in front of a wood which gave them protection on one side, and on the other side they put their wagons and their horses tied together, and made a big trench for security, and in front they fixed their archers' stakes in the English manner

This is from Jehan de Waurin's Recuiel des Croniques et Anchiennes Istoires de la Grant Bretagne, à present nommé Engleterre, quoted in translation in the Historic England paper on the battle, and it appears to be a primary source for the stakes and the ditch (probably the only primary source?).

From this I would assume that the stakes are only in front of the archers, in the usual way. The ditch looks as if it was, along with the wagons, protecting one flank - the one not covered by the wood - not the rear.

[Erpingham]

The interpretation of the Wavrin passage in Griffith's book is that they built a wagon lager behind the army.  I'm not totally convinced.  Waurin implies that they are in line, with one end secured by a wood and the other by a wagon lager.  The archers seem likely to me to stand across the front of the army, behind their stakes (this is, AFAIK, the only mention of stakes in a WOTR action).  It is unclear how close to the brook the archers stood but they could reach men on the far side. 

Wavrin is the only author who gives the detail of the fortification.  Hall says that the Yorkists provoked the lancastrians to attack by shooting arrows at them then appearing to retreat.  Other accounts give no tactical details.

[Dave Knight]

Thanks

I will ignore the ditch I think and make the wagons impassible terrain for the purposes of the scenario.

I will limit the stakes to the archers.  However if I have two lines this limits the frontage and has the effect of providing stakes for the remaining troops when the archers fall back.  The intermingled line approach seems possible - do we know what deployments were like at any other battles with field fortifications or barriers such as St Albans?

[Erpingham]

Well, we know that Lord Scales at the siege of Loja in 1486 used his men at arms to lead, supported by his archers. At Dixmuide, the archers led the attack but the assault on the fortifications was made by the German pikemen.  The deployment of the archers and others in WOTR battles is a bit of a guessing game at the best of times.

[Dave Knight]

In open field battles our rules mean that archers are only effective as a front line, they fall back in the face of melee troops and are then are available as lighter but still melee capable units but are no longer missile capable.

This is the first time we have modelled an attack on field fortifications and I am worried by the degree of choreography involved in the archerss shooting and moving back from the line of the defences being replaced on that line by the melee troops in the face of an enemy assault, including cavalry.  My limited understanding of 100 years war tactics suggests that the archers did not normally retreat but stayed put behind their stakes.

Further reading is probably required. 

We may try it both ways and see what works best

[Erpingham]

Your point about stakes is well made.  These archers are prepared to fight on the defensive, so skipping forward and back may not be on the agenda.  However, we have Hall's view that they were sufficiently advanced to shoot across the brook and cause problems for the cavalry on the other side before retreating.  It reminds me of the archery at the beginning of Agincourt.  Wavrin's version doesn't mention the Yorkists moving, just shooting the Lancastrian cavalry when they came in range. 

[Dave Knight]

We have the brook in archery range of the line of stakes, so when the cavalry come forward they will get shot at.

Ideally the first attack of mainly hobilars will take sufficient casualties from archery to make them withdraw, the second attack of mounted men at arms will take some casualties and disorder from shooting but close.

The attack of the second wave should have a chance of winning but the Yorkists should still have the advantage.

If the second wave is also thrown back I expect the third wave to have the advantage as the Yorkists should have been weakened.  However we then have the potential for one of the Lancastrain units to change sides and perhaps deliver the coup de gras. 

Should be interesting

[Erpingham]

Though we should note the split of casualties in Wavrin

First attack - Lancastrians 5-600, Yorkists 22
Second attack - Lancastrians 100, Yorkists 10
Third attack - Lancastrian 12-1300, Yorkists 26 (I would guess Lancastrians were actually mainly in the rout)

I would read these as a badly shot up first charge, which gets to grips but not very effectively, a second charge against perhaps a reduced arrow supply but not that well pressed home, a third with some determination (it lasted half an hour, out of battle length, according to Gregory, of four hours) which is driven off in rout. 

The literal casualty figures on the Yorkist side are probably deliberately under reported (it was the victor's prerogative to exaggerate the margin of victory) but the overall losses are similar in Hall (2400)

I think this is a good battle to fight in phases, allowing reorganisation of forces between phases rather than playing them out on table.

[Dave Knight]

The Yorkists won quite easily

The first attack was easily beaten off with due to some very effective shooting.

The shooting was also good aginst the second attack but one mounted MAA unit did get through and routed a couple of units before being driven off.

The foot line did not make it to the stakes as the single Yorkist foot MAA unit, having routed the mouuted unit above, counterattacked and managed to rout another 3 Lancastrian foot units one after the other to take them below their break point.

I was the Yorkists and my dice rolling was spectacularly good so we will run it again and see if the result is closer

After that Sark

[Erpingham]

After that Sark

I shall refresh my knowledge in anticipation

[Dave Knight]

http://portal.historicenvironment.scot/designation/BTL40

This seems pretty good and will form the basis of the scenario - I will have a look to see if I have anything else.

Our rules have a 'feud' mechanic which increases the deadliness of winning melees - Percy v Douglas sounds like an ideal opportunity to utilise that

[Erpingham]

I seem to remember we are quite reliant on Pittscottie for this one.  I did a bit of reseach on it a few years ago, which led down some interesting pathways about the Redmaine/Redmaynes.  I will have to recreate it, as I didn't take notes