SoA Forums

Gentlemen,

Though the conflict is certainly later than your typical Gauls versus Romans battle, I believe (hope) that a majority of you might find this of interest or at the very least, slightly entertaining.

Here's the link (fingers crossed that it works):
http://lonewarriorswa.com/the-battle-of-glynndale-moor-aar

Thanks.

Chris

Interesting fight, Chris: the archery 'extras' did not seem to make much difference in view of the high saving rolls, and Pembroke's treachery-on-the-march was amusing.

If doing this again, perhaps restrict treachery to contingents already on the field, or if the game can be umpired, allow a contingent to turn traitor before arrival, which means that when it arrives (behind friendly lines) the opponent moves it onto the field and employs it henceforth.

On the subject of Wars of the Roses treachery, it was usual for all or none of a contingent to turn traitor, as opposed to part of it.  While this can have serious balance implications, this was also true in the real thing - just ask Richard III!

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on December 22, 2013, 11:05:43 PM
On the subject of Wars of the Roses treachery, it was usual for all or none of a contingent to turn traitor, as opposed to part of it.  While this can have serious balance implications, this was also true in the real thing - just ask Richard III!

It was also rare for treachery to actually occur on the field - much rarer than most wargames allow.  What the WoTR did have is the climate of fear of treachery as many nobles changed allegiances as campaigns developed.  So the morale effects of treachery or suspected treachery should be played up, even if the incidence of battlefield side-changing and fence-sitting is low.

Indeed: at Barnet and Tewkesbury, it was the suspicion of treason rather than treason itself that led to trouble and the loss of the battle - in game terms, Tewkesbury could be represented either by Wenlock's or Somerset's command getting a 'treason' result and at Barnet either Oxford or Montagu (it may be noted that Wenlock and Montagu had changed allegiance previously and so were under suspicion - unjustifiably, as it turned out).

Bosworth was one of the very few clear instances of battlefield treason - Stanley unambiguously switched sides in mid-battle.  He was, of course, under suspicion, but Richard III made the serious mistake of killing the hostage (Lord Strange, Stanley's offspring) whose presence kept Stanley inactive and uncommitted.

As Anthony indicates, it was the hair-trigger suspicion of treason, particularly concerning those whose past allegiances had been flexible, that produced most of the 'treasonous' battlefield occurrences and left many looking over their shoulders in anticipation of possible trouble.  Actual on-the-field treason was very much the exception, not the rule - but suspicion, particularly of previous turncoats, was rife.

There was also battlefield treachery at Northampton (decisive), Ludford Bridge (resulting in no actual battle) and Second St Alban's (probably fairly minor, and slightly doubtful anyway).  Plenty of justification for all those nervous glances over the shoulder.  Richard didn't execute Lord Strange at Bosworth; he probably should have done!

In my refight of Bosworth on the 500th anniversary (written up in Slingshot, November 1985), there were six players who were forbidden to talk to each other except for abuse - they could only send written messages whose delivery would take time.  Each player had secret individual victory conditions; Richard, Tudor, Norfolk and Oxford would not change sides in any circumstances, the Stanleys wanted Tudor to win but preferred to stay out of the fighting, and Northumberland wanted Richard to win but also preferred neutrality. 

In the event, Norfolk fell on Oxford's division and drove it steadily back.  The Stanleys hovered on the sidelines; Richard sent the bulk of his division to attack them in a pre-emptive strike and slew Sir William Stanley.  Lord Stanley then became committed to Tudor's cause.   When Oxford's division was on the point of breaking, Norfolk fell to a stray arrow and his division fled.  Northumberland had been itching to join in, irrespective of his victory conditions, and he and his men-at-arms mounted up intending to ride to Richard's support.  Despite receiving a reassuring message to this effect, Richard distrusted Northumberland and, knowing that killing Tudor would give him an outright win, led a desperate charge at Tudor and was slain fighting manfully in the thickest press of his enemies.  So suspicion of treachery, in this case unjustified, decided the day again.

you say Stanley unambiguously switched sides during the battle, which implies he started fighting for Richard, which I understood he didn't. 
Isn't it more accurate to say that he just hung back to the side out of it until it was clear that he could pick the winner?

didn't he even refuse to make camp with Richards army, so its hardly switching mid battle if Richard makes the mistake of assuming his support and then calling him traitor when it does not materialise.

treachery is far to easy to bandy about with minimal evidence - and what Stanley did hardly seems to qualify given the circumstances, especially to describe it as 'mid battle'.

Quote from: John GL on December 23, 2013, 11:57:32 PM
There was also battlefield treachery at Northampton (decisive), Ludford Bridge (resulting in no actual battle) and Second St Alban's (probably fairly minor, and slightly doubtful anyway). 

The desertions occurred the night before Ludford IIRC - not exactly a battlefield desertion in the terms of a wargame, though the two armies were camped facing each other.  As you say, the St Albans incident doesn't seem to have been major, if it happened at all.

As to what the Stanleys were doing at Bosworth, we can't be certain.  They were hardly going to have it written up that they intended to support Richard but changed their minds.  Phil Steele, who has been refighting Bosworth on the Society stand this year, would say, I think, that Henry was reasonably sure of the Stanleys whereas Richard wasn't certain what they might do, which gave them different tactical issues.

On the morning of Bosworth Sir William Stanley had already been declared a traitor, so he certainly didn't "switch sides" by fighting for Tudor.  Lord Stanley was still protesting his loyalty to Richard, so he did "switch sides" if his troops fought for Tudor (which is uncertain).

Ludford Bridge: the armies were arrayed ready to fight when part of one army deserted to the other, resulting in their former comrades fleeing.  I think that's a "battlefield desertion".

I think we get the general idea that battlefield treason was rare but the fear of it was pervasive.  A nice list of the so far unconsidered actions there, John.

According to the Wikipedia account of Ludford Bridge, Richard of York had set up a defensive position, with ditches, stakes etc. and deployed his army, when:

"Among the troops brought by Warwick from Calais were 600 men led by Andrew Trollope, an experienced soldier. During the night, Trollope and his men defected to the Lancastrians. On hearing this, York, Salisbury and Warwick crossed the bridge and went at midnight into Ludlow, ostensibly for refreshment. They then abandoned their armies and fled."

Technically, we have a case of treason against themselves by the leaders of the Yorkist army - I wonder how that would be represented in a tabletop engagement!  King Henry subsequently pardoned their leaderless followers.

One year later, Lord Grey of Ruthin at Northampton showed how battlefield treason should be done, admitting the Yorkists into the Lancastrian defences by prearrangement and the promise of later high office (he became Treasurer ... hmmm ...).

Gents,

Interesting reading here!

Shall have to make a point of revisiting the WOTR in 2014. I liked the "rule" where players cannot communicate with each other (save through written messages) and have their own objectives. This is a bit hard to do  as a solo gamer, but perhaps I can employ something similar?

Perhaps doing something with weather and firing on your own side would be easier to manufacture or manipulate than treachery?

Thanks again for all the information.

Regards,

Chris