A REBUTTAL TO DR. BUNKER AND MR. JOHNSON 'THE KNIGHT IN MINIATURE WARFARE'

I am writing this letter as I feel that the extensive comments on the knight in miniature warfare by Dr. Bunker and Mr. Johnson (in The Courier #60 & 62) fail to make some important points about this subject.

Both of these gentlemen are not really being clear about the subject, neither in terms of period nor the type of warfare they want to discuss. The main example of this is their use of the term "Feudal Warfare". Do they mean primarily a particular time period usually assumed to be the period from the end of the Carolingian era up to about 1200 A.D., or do they mean the type of warfare in which most troops were supposed to be raised by the granting of 'fees' (fiefs) by an overlord in return for the fee holder providing some sort of military service Neither of these concepts has much relation to the realities of where 'knights' came from, how many of them there might be in an army, and how they were organized. There really was only a few instances where 'feudal' knights were utilized for any significant period of time. The most complete example of this type of warfare existed in the Holy Roman Empire during the late 9th and 10th centuries by which time it was said of the Ottonian Franks thatthey were so used to fighting from horseback, that they didn't know how to do so on foot. What this comment tells us. however, is these 'knights' were occasionally used as foot troops, one expects because there were no other foot troops available. However, this also tells us that when these troops were called to service, they brought no foot troops with them; so much for the idea of 'feudal' infantry.

Next we come to the classic northern French knights. From the time of the Norman Conquest up to the battle of Bouvains in 1204, we see armies from this part of Western Europe using large numbers of mercenary foot troops, as is shown quite clearly by William the Conqueror keeping so many thousands of such men under arms hile he waited for his fleet to be able to sail against England. Since he had no ability to require either his Norman lords, or the Fleming or Breton contingents to provide such troops for a foreign invasion, it becomes quite clear that they HAD to be mercenaries. In latter French armies, such as that usedat Bouvains, while it was true that the cavalry was raised primarily from feudal sources, it is quite clear that the various villages and towns were under the direct orders of the king himself to provide groups of foot troops, with their own transport.

We then come to post-Conquest England, especially Edward I's campaigns in Wales in the 1170's and 1180's. In his book, 'Welsh Wars of Edward I', Morris shows quite clearly that the cavalry average was something like 5 or 6 Sergeants to 1 Knight in each led by men also directly chosen by the king. Where are the 'feudal' foot troops in this system. Not to mention that most cavalry were not even knights, but usually sergeants provided by the fee holders as mercenaries, because the fee holders simply didn't have accessto any significant number of knights, since even by this early in England sub-infuedation (sic) had reached such a level that even simple knights, let alone great lords found it much easier to collect money from the landholders under them and buy merce naries, than to try and make any theoretical feudal system work by providing actual 'feudal' knights.

In fact, as early as the reign of William the Conqueror, the king started requiring each free subject of the realm to swear an oath to provide whatever military service he was capable of directly to the king, thus completely by-passing any sort of even 'theo retical' feudal service. This concept, that even free men owed military service directly to the nation through the office of the rules, came from the much older Germanic tradition that each member of the tribe be required to fight to protect the tribe, and was not only represented by the 'ban' in Normandy and other parts of France, but was also reflected in the Anglo-Saxon 'fyrd' which was required to provide the same kind of 'local defense force' duty. This duty was not feudal and could not even be required outside the 'country' unless the king or some senior representative of the nation was present with these men.

Outside the geographical areas discussed above, such as northern Spain, where the towns provided most of the 'knights' or northern Italy, where many of the 'knightly' class from the country-side were politically subservient to the towns, the so-called 'feudal' system was never really operational. Finally we have the latter Crusading states, where the knightly class became so powerful, that THEY told the king of Jerusalem what to do and not the reverse.

So, except during short periods of time, and in limited areas, there is no really 'feudal' type of military organization. In fact, wherever and whenever the attempt to create a 'feudal' system was made, it broke down very quickly. So quickly, in most cases, that the system of 'scutage' (a fine for not providing feudal service) was also quickly introduced, with the money used to hire mercenaries.

This system of mercenaries, making up all or part of an army during all or part of a campaign, became common very quickly as I have illustrated in the 1066 campaign, particularly since if a ruler creates an army through the process of using mercenaries, then he can organize it any way he wishes, including deciding how it will be commanded. The Conqueror's army in 1066 is another good example of this fact, as is shown by the internal organiza tion of his army, with the Bretons on one flank, the Flemings on the other, and the Normans in the center. It would appear that this army had a very clear system of organization, and thus a clear operation of command.

What might appear to be a good example of 'feudal' armies, during the rebellion against King John in the early 1200's is in fact instead an example of the fact that even as early as this period the nobles were using the system of indentures and retainers, described below, while John fell back on what was even by this time the tried and true procedures of building an army out of mercenaries, even if they were foreigners in this case.

A retinue is simply a group of men 'retained' to serve someone, usually for money, who do not necessarily have any 'feudal' relationship. In fact, there were two clear cut types of retain ers. One of these was, of course, a man who agreed to serve another man for life. But this type of retainer could and regu larly did include agreements to serve as anything from a Steward or Bailiff to a herald or household servant, and of course, a soldier. But agreeing to serve as a soldier could include any thing from being an infantryman doing castle guard duty, up through a cavalry trooper, or even someone with experience rais ing and commanding troops.

The other kind of retainer was much more common, i.e., someone who agreed to serve specifically as a soldier of some type for a limited period of time, usually only for a specific campaign, and regularly for only from three to six months at a time. In fact, this was the procedure that English armies, beginning at least as early as the time of Edward I, used to form what became known as Indentured Retinues, where the king, acting through Parliament, would get authorization to raise a certain number of troops for use in a specific campaign, and would then arrange with his experienced military leaders, admittedly usually his higher nobles, but with others as low as bannerets, or simple knights, to recruit bodies of troops, including heavy cavalry (knights and sergeants), bowmen (mounted and foot), and billmen and spearmen, as preferred. The 'indenture' was actually a 'contract', and the retinue consisted of the men who agreed to sign the contract for the duration of a campaign. As can clearly be seen in this de scription, there is no 'feudal' operation of any sort or kind in any part of this activity. Troops raised in this manner are completely mercenary in all aspects, and thus completely under the direction of the king, including organization and command procedures.

I would like to go back to the idea of feudal infantry, since it seems that many people appear to have a problem understanding what is usually meant by a 'fee' or 'fief'. First, the gift of a fee or fief usually means the bestowal or gift of the use of a piece of land in return for the providing of some sort of mili tary service, i.e., the agreed upon number of knights to his overlord - or two sergeants instead of one knight). It had nothing to do with raising infantry. The fact that a knight would always bring along one or more servants, either mounted, usually, or on foot, did not mean that these men were part of any kind or type of 'feudal' service. In fact, it was the presence of these 'servants' that created the concept of the 'lance', which did not become a regular feature of military organization until at least the end of the 1300's, well past any sort of 'feudal' operation, if there actually was such a thing, and well into the period when rulers were making all the decisions about how their armies were organized, commanded, paid and directed.

Thus we see that from a very early period, at least that of the 1066 campaign, mercenaries were a major part of western and central European warfare, and that rulers, both local and 'na tional' would expect to have very strong control over their troops, both in command systems and internal organization. -T.COVENEY, Norwalk, CA.

A FEW NOTES ON THE SPANISH CIVIL WAR

In spite of a disconnect between my word processing software and THE COURIER's desktop publishing software which eliminated many of the quotation marks in my article in ISSUE 59, the response to that and the other two articles by Nick Nascati and Robin Hunt was favorable. This has led to a number of questions, and a few legitimate complaints which I should like to clear up. I would also like to take this opportunity to fill in a few blanks in our coverage.

First, with respect to complaints, my son-in-law Brett Abbott and other members of the MONDAY NIGHT ADVENTURERS have expressed some quite legitimate annoyance with the lack of credit given them in photo captions. The MNA group is well known for Boxer Rebellion, Sepoy Revolt, and other very colorful and lively games put on at HMGS conventions. I deliberately got them addicted, through Brett, to the SCW because their games would tend to promote any product line. It is safe to assume that any photos which showed single mounted HPC figures in ISSUE 59 depict MNA owned and operated figures. (Skirmish games are too personal for my taste.)

A second point, in support of Robin Hunt's comments on the SCW in the air. Most of the major aircraft can be tracked down. Illus trated in the photograph is a FIAT C.R.32 in Patrullo Azul (Blue Patrol) markings. Of 16 fighter squadrons supporting the final Nationalist Offensives, 12 flew the C.R.32, 3 flew the BP109B-E, and one flew the HE.112. The C.R.32 in 1/72nd scale can be ob tained from either Royal Hobbies, 3920 East State Street, Rock ford, IL 61108, or SQUADRON MAIL ORDER, 1115 Crowley Drive, Dallas, TX 75011-5010 for $6.50. The Polikarpov I-16 depicted in ISSUE 59 is a reissue of an old Revell Plastics kit and costs about the same. The Polikarpov biplane shown was unfortunately not an I-15, but an I152 or I-15bis. For some reason it tends to cost around $12.50. The I-15 is occasionally available in kit form for about the same price; you have to follow the catalogs. The most obvious difference is that the I-15 has an inverted gull upper wing which joins the fuselage, while, as shown, the I-15bis has a relatively straight upper wing separated from the fuselage by struts. For some reason the early mark BF-109's (B,C,D, orE) tend to appear only in 1/48 scale - twice I have mistakenly ordered them only to find an overscale item in my mailbox. Howev er, the E model is universally available, and so long as you don't use it at full potential in your games, it should pass. Thus if you follow the catalogs of the two companies indicated, you should be able to obtain models for 90% of the fighter squad rons in action from roughly OCT 36 to the end of the war. Other 1/72nd offerings include the SM81 and SM79 Italian Bombers, the Junkers JU52 Bomber/Transport, and a host of other types used in this conflict - including the Deagon Rapide light transport which smuggled Franco to his friends in the Army of Africa.

Lastly, several questions have come in about the uniforms (or should be say costumes) of the early Republican forces. I have referred several readers to Orwell's HOMAGE TO CATALONIA to passages which dropped out of the final version of my article. Orwell served in the "Lenin" Column, or Division, later known as the 29th, on which Dave Allsopp's "LENIN COLUMN" figures are based. Of them Orwell (op.cit.) indicated that the "uniform" consisted of knee-length corduroy trousers, any shirt or headgear they could find, and usually a (preferably red) scarf. The Lenin column also seems to have served with groups of Anarchists, which Dave modeled in his "DURRUTI COLUMN" series. The latter, based on contemporary photographs, favored a peculiar leather military cap, lots of hand grenades, and scarves which were preferably red and black. Some photos show the initials C.N.Y. on the cap front.

Here's hoping you enjoy this interesting new period - even if you game it in 6mm, 10mm, or 15mm (or even in plastic conversions) instead of with my HPC figures.

I have been pouring over THEY DIED FOR GLORY and IN THE AGE OF BISMARCK AND NAPOLEON III, and trying to find the other games for which I have photographed selections from HMGS conventions and which I believe to be GRAND BATAILLE GRANDE VICTOIRE. However, the definitive article on the rise of FRANCO-PRUSSIAN WARGAMING still eludes me. I would appreciate having Mr. Brown's address so that I can confirm some points about his rules and basing-having misplaced his rules and being unable to locate the games in question in old convention programs.

I will mush on and finish the review anyway - with lots of photos. But I don't want to hold this up. - PAT CONDRAY, Alexandria, VA