Writing army lists for the Wars of the Roses

[Dave Knight]

Is actually rather easy unless I am missing something.

All the English troops, whichever side they fought on, were basically the same

Men at Arms
Billmen (or equivalent)
Archers
Hobelars (or equivalent)
Artillery

The only real differentiator is which mercenaries/allies available.  Most of them were pretty much equivalent to the above apart from Handgunners, Crossbowmen (not sure about these) and later on Pike.  Oh and Irish, but I think only the Kerns are markedly different to English types.  Any Scots are the same as the English but with fewer archers.

Or am I oversimplifying?

[Paul Innes]

Good topic, David. I like the idea of different morale levels within the broad categories you mentioned. Immediate circumstances in the run-up to a battle could be very important. For example, Tewkesbury was a relatively small affair in terms of troop numbers compared with something like Towton, but there seems to have been a marked difference in the relative attitudes of the two armies. The larger Lancastrian force was tired and hungry after being denied entry to Gloucester, while the Yorkists were eager and on a roll after recent victories. The Yorkist artillery seems to have been better served than their counterparts, possibly being the one arm in which they were superior in numbers after some battlefield captures. So one's rules should take into account such variations, unless one happens to believe that the Lancastrians rolled a lot of 1s and the Yorkist army all 6s. Oh, and there is also the small matter of treachery/non-performance by whole commands in may of these battles, Tewkesbury included...

[Dave Knight]

Totally understand where you are coming from Paul but to me those are scenario specific ratings rather than generic army list ones.

[Erpingham]

I suspect you need to reflect the contemporary belief that "feed men" were the critical component of armies i.e. retainers and their fellowships.  Arrayed men and militias raised from tenantry weren't as potent a force.  How you represent this (higher morale?  Greater experience?  better armed?) is probably down to your rules.

[Jim Webster]

I suspect you need to reflect the contemporary belief that "feed men" were the critical component of armies i.e. retainers and their fellowships.  Arrayed men and militias raised from tenantry weren't as potent a force.  How you represent this (higher morale?  Greater experience?  better armed?) is probably down to your rules.

I must admit I've often wondered about the various contingents. Somebody could bring with him his retainers, but also the county militia etc. When his force was drawn up in battle, was it was drawn up as one block, effectively 'stiffened' militia, or was the militia formed up as a separate 'unit' (whatever one of them was)

[Dave Knight]

I would go with the stiffened militia approach. 

[Nick Harbud]

I suspect that whilst the overall number of different troop types is quite small, individual armies could vary wildly in their compositions.  I note that the WRG army list included separate variations for the armies of

• Yorkist
• Lancastrian
• Richard III
• Tudor
• Yorkist Pretenders

In adition to English troops, the lists also allow for various foreign contingents, such as

• Welsh
• Irish
• Northern Border types
• Burgundians
• Germans (provided by Burgundians)
• French
• Breton

Including all of these, your rules should probably include consideration of handguns, crossbows, petards, spearmen (as distinct from bllmen), axemen (as distinct from billmen), pikes, as well as the various French types described in Duncan Head's recent Slingshot article.

[Erpingham]

I would go with the stiffened militia approach.

It possibly depends on how the rules work but I'd imagine in a pitched battle the heavy infantry would have the good stuff in front with the militia types encouraging from the back, with maybe little islands of men-at-arms round the standards.  I'm less sure on archers - would they be mixed?

[Erpingham]

Including all of these, your rules should probably include consideration of handguns, crossbows, petards, spearmen (as distinct from bllmen), axemen (as distinct from billmen), pikes, as well as the various French types described in Duncan Head's recent Slingshot article.

On distinctions between bills, axes and spears I'd be very dubious.  In a skirmish, when you are dealing with individuals yes but when dealing with assorted militia types, some of whom had bills, some axes and some spears in varying proportions, it seems improbable that they organised themselves into differently armed contingents. 

[Nick Harbud]

On distinctions between bills, axes and spears I'd be very dubious.  In a skirmish, when you are dealing with individuals yes but when dealing with assorted militia types, some of whom had bills, some axes and some spears in varying proportions, it seems improbable that they organised themselves into differently armed contingents.

I was thinking more of the various allied/foreign contingents that crop up in the battles.  For example, Welsh are predominantly long spears as opposed to bills or a mixture of weapons.  Northern Border staves seem to have distinct weappons and tactics to currours/hobilars.  Irish tend to be some variant on danish axe rather than a spear or bill, etc, etc.

[Erpingham]

I don't think there is a solid base of evidence for any units of spearmen from Wales, simply because we don't know much about weaponry of the time.  The fact that Wales had its own form of bill in the 16th century might make us pause.  Mixed bill/spear units do seem to be present in Henry VIII Welsh militia, though, so this could well be rooted in 15th century practice.

Distinguishing between types of polearms (bills, axes, voulges, guisarmes etc.) depends on the rules but I can't think of much functional reason.

[Mick Hession]

Apart from galloglass (who didn't fight in England) axes were rare in Ireland by the 15th century. The Irish at Stoke were kern so armed with javelins and knives.

Cheers
Mick

[Dave Knight]

Good debate

I tend to shy away from differently armed units other than those I outlined above.

My position is that the idea of units themselves are us forcing concepts from different eras into this one.  We use it to break down a conglomeration of troops ( A Battle) so that one part of it may get pushed back or routed.

I have covered the foreign troops under mercenaries/allies

Quick question on Stoke - it seems rather odd that the only troops brought over from Ireland were kerns (javelin armed skirmishers) - surely armoured guys with big chopping weapons would have been much more useful?

[Jim Webster]

I personally suspect that you might get 'units' formed by men of separate nations (Welsh, French, Germans) because of language problems rather than the difference in weapons

With regard to mixing archers, all, whether they were militia or retained, would doubtless use the same techniques, (and probably competed against each other at the butts on Sunday anyway). So I can see them being mixed, perhaps the retained being regarded as NCOs or forming a front rank where they might be able to use any superior accuracy.

With the rest of the infantry, I suspect that we're more hung up on weaponry than they were and I would guess men at arms around the leaders, with the best retained men stiffening the others, with the poorest at the back,

[Mick Hession]

The Irish at Stoke were led by the earl of Kildare's brother and Kildare had few galloglass at that date: the first in his employ formed an understrength company of just 24 men in 1478. Even at the height of power he only maintained a couple of hundred directly - they were neither numerous nor cheap.

Kern were however plentiful and expendable. Sometimes you field what you've got, not what you'd like 

Cheers
Mick