IDEAS FOR DIFFERENT PERIODS There seems to be a real interest in 'discovering' ne./different periods and scenarios. May I suggest someone try out Italy in 1848-49 and 1857-61? Both include a hodge podge of forces: French, Piedmont/Sardinian and Austrian (usually Hungarian and Croatian Grenz) line, elite volunteers like Garibaldi's 1000 (the famous red shirts), Papal line troops, Sician peasants, Neapolitan line, a sprinkling of English (and French, Swiss and Germans) similar to the International Brigades of Spain, city mobs, etc., etc., etc. Uniforms for the line troops would be easy,and rugged Confederate types would do for many ofthe militia. Then there are crack elites, small well-trained and leg units like the Genoese caribiniers or better still Manara's Bersaglieri of 1849 black uniforms and I believe Corsican hats, rifle armed, with attached lancers wearing blue and red, topped with a fez! Morale would cover the entire range including'fanatic'for the rebels; arms would be the same; the key ingredient (which I think you'd enjoy in particular) would be leadership qualities: the importance of Garibaldi himself, his major lieutenants, the professionalism and training of different Austrian and Neapolitan opponents, etc. Scenarios would cover major pitched battles between Franco-Piedmontese vs. Austrians, to the French siege of the Roman Republic in 1848/49, to skirmish. Terrain includes everything from rolling plains to perpendicular mountaiffis and narrow city streets. As far as source material, I am only familiar with G.M. Trevelyan's trilogy from the turn of the century: Garibaldi and the Defense of the Roman Republic, Garibaldi and the 1000. and Garibaldi and the Making of Europe. One could also do the Hungarian campaigns of 1848-49; the Russians came in from the east, the Austrians (actually, the Croatian Grenzers freed from the slightly earlier Italian campaign) from the southwest and the south. I have no information about the composition of armies Re: the Rorke's Drift article: If I remember correctly, the old Lowry'sGuiclon (up in Maine it was) had a set of simple quick rules given the lack of figures available at the time, the writer recommended using the natives from the old Airfix Tarzan sets, and cutting off the spikes from Airfix WWI Germans to make British! Can't find mycopy, but this set of rules would be circa 1972; very quick and simple. - BUD BURKHARD, Framingham, MA MORE ON CAVALRY CHARGES I refer to the article Charge! in Vol. VI, No. 6 by P. Haythornthwaite. To qualify myself, I've served for 3 years in a US Army HORSE Cavalry unit and spent many years in ACW cavalry reenactment units; I've participated in all sorts of mock battles, skirmishes and drill with sabre, rifle, pistol and cannon. A. "Giving a horse its head". This phrase is a little deceptive. In the charge, a horse is given "its head", but that does not mean the horse is out of control. The horseman doesn't drop his reins and hang on for dear life. The horse should be no more out of control than is a rodeo horse chasing a steer. The gallop (the correct term) is exciting but is not much more difficult to control than the canter. For a new rider, the trot is actually the most trying gait. The inexperienced rider will be more concerned about staying in the saddle let alone controlling the horse. If he can ride the canter, he can ride the gallop. Col. Harvey's idea that cavalrymen who have never ridden the gallop (if true) would lose control just doesn't ring true. Even a half decent rider will be able to bring his horse out of a charge at will. It may take him 20-30 more yards to do it though. If the horse is trained as a cavalry mount, it may rally without the rider doing anything. I've seen many a riderless horse reform into ranks during drill or charge. Though I agree with the quote by the Peninsular veteran and the discussion of field day in 1798, such things are learned rapidly. Though raised in the city and only an average rider, I've taken rental horses into mock battles or seen it done by others on many occasions. Usually after one or two false starts they adapt rapidly. As the Peninsular veteran alludes, there are always a limited number of horses in the group who "freak out". Without a superior rider and lengthy training these horses are a decided liability to the safety and good order of your formations, The larger the group of horses the easier they are to control as individuals. Horses are herd animals and will probably move together with little prodding. If all the horses around you are galloping, you will find yourself galloping also. Trained cavalry horses will know when the charge is coming. They usually become more excited and ready to go. Unless they are VERY tired, you don't spur them into gallop. You release them. The reference to ill trained cavalrymen and horses reminds me of the poor cavalry Frederick the Great inherited. Was England's cavalry so much better trained? I recall reading in various sources what bad reputations the French individual cavalryman had and what good reputations the German and British had. An interesting quote by Kincaid (95th Rifles) is: "if we saw a British Dragoon at any time approaching in full speed, it excited no great curiosity amoung us, but whenever we saw one of the 1st Hussars (KGL) coming on at a gallop, it was high time to gird on our swords and bundle up." Such was the reputation of the KGL cavalry. French cavalry was noted for its lack of individual training. As French cavalry columns passed, the smell of saddle sores, etc., filled the air. The average cavalryman barely knew how to saddle and ride his horse. Especially after the drain of the Russian campaign. French went through horse flesh at a phenomenal rate. It was French cavalry, a mere shadow of its former self, which launched the ferocious charge at Liepzig and behaved with an effect all out of proportion to its actual numbers in the 1814 campaigns. A corollary question to "why did the British cavalry do so poorly?" is "why did the French cavalry do so well?" What caused the KGL cavalry to be so much better than their British contemporaries? It is my belief that poor cavalry leadership for the British and the "cult of the charge" rampant especially in the British Light Cavalry were the main authors of their problems. Ever since the thunderclap entrance of British Light Cavalry at Emden in 1759, the charge was everything. This consuming idea led directly to the 23rd Lt. Dragoons debacle at Talavera when the Regiment, almost in full gallop, blundered into a ditch, the loss of the Union Brigade at Waterloo and the famous Charge of the Light Brigade into the Russian batteries at Balaclava. - MARK R. HENRY, APO, NY A REPLY FROM P. HAYTHORNTHWAITE Mark Henry makes a number of pertinent points; indeed, so strange does Colonel Harvey's assertion appear that it is hardly surprising that some discussion is the result of the article. By "out of control", I didn't intend to imply that the rider was hanging around the horse's neck; simply that he was not "in control" of his mount. And anyone who has had the misfortune to see horses used in a riot situation, being assailed with missiles, would agree that if both horses and riders were unused to anything resembling such conditions, the resulting chaos could he disastrous. Comparison with the French cavalry isn't directly relevant to the imperfections of the British, for (as Mark correctly states), the British were inferior in many respects to the cavalry of the King's German Legion; at least, the less-experienced regiments were. A more relevant comparison would be between the British line regiments and the K.G.L., as to whythe latter were superior; see below. As Mark says, poor leadership was undoubtedly a major factor in a series of poor performances, but (whilst regimental training and leadership are closely related) the fact remains that with the same higher command, the calibre of regiments varied widely, the newly-arrived (and thus inexperienced) units almost always being inferior to those with some experience. In addition, of course, a poor regimental commander could ruin an otherwise good unit; witness the ruination of the 10th Hussars under their colonel, Quentin, who was court-martialled but acquitted almost certainly as a result of royal influence. By coincidence, a most fascinating work has just been published, which I was thus unable to consult when writing the article: Intelligence Officer in the Peninsula (1, Page, Tunbridge Wells 1986), the letters and memoranda of Edward C. Cocks of the 16th Light Dragoons, probably(with Le Marchant) the most intelligent British cavalry officer of his clay, a quite brilliant intelligence officer, scout and commander of picquets, who was repeatedly commended by Wellington and from his writings was in the Jomini class as a theorist (he was killed in 1812 or, as Wellington said, "he would have become one of the first Generals in England"). His remarks are therefore of great interest, especially as he was concerned principally with cavalry and, despite regimental pride, was acurely aware of the failings of the cavalry, and concerned in how theycould be remedied. Whilst he highlights the failings of some officers, his main criticism is directed against lack of training, not only for outpost duty but equally in combat. He states that part of the K.G1. superiority was because "their horses are under better command" (supporting Harvey's theory?), and that quality improved with experience: "no longer ignorant barrack soldiers". Relevant opinions by Cocks are as follows: 4 July 1810: regarding the K.G.L. "The Hussars behaved particularly well. it would be unfair not to bear unqualified testimony to their courage, zeal and knowledge of their duty. They have not such good seats as English dragoons but their horses are under better command" (my italics). 9 July 1810: the K.G.L. "are old Hussars, almost all Hanoverians, and many of them of great respectability. These men are perfectly to be depended up and understand outpost duty better, and take more care of their horses than British dragoons". 30 June 1871 "The 11th Dragoons have made a bad business of it. This it is to teach soldiers at home nothing but the fiddlestick duties of parade either we are to have an army or we are not If we are, thatarms, must learn their business among swords and bayonets or they will be no better than so many citizens a pretty business we should make of it if we had nothing to oppose [the enemy with] but armies made of men like so manvvolunteers. To be sure. it is very provoking to lose 125 men but still I comfort myself that it will have its use by proving the necessityof training troops in war itself, and altering our system at home to make it as like war as circumstances will admit". 10 September 1811: "The 11th continue to expend their men and horses. It is melancholy for anyone who regards the honour of his country or his profession to observe the deplorable ignoranceand want of spirit which pervades our Cavalry officers in theirfirst arrival from England. Can you conceive a Gentleman reporting officially'the French army had gone to Castile'. which he conceived must be a very large town though he 'could not find it in the map, for it held the whole army'. An Englishman by national character is so vain and so much accustomed to underratethe military profession that he thinks if he knows a few manoeuvres he is fullvqualified to perform his duty the intrepidity which enables a man to use the powers of his mind in danger requires an habitual acquaintance with an enemy not to be acquired in the heath of Newmarket and the Purlieus of Covent Garden 2 October 1811: describing El Bodon: "Our men were broke: but they are no longer ignorant barrack soldiers and they reformed constantly". December 1811: "The service of light cavalry to which I have been bred is nowhere taught in England Obviously in h if the above refers to bad leadership at regimental level. Cocks, for example, was especially critical of Lieut. Wood of the I I th Light Dragoons who was captured in 1811 a% a result of bad scooting: Wood's own men surrendered on his instructions but the K.G.L party with him, commanded by a sergeant, cut its way free for the loss of one man killed and three wounded, despite Wood shouting after them, "Give up my boys, give up. You'll all be killed"! Equally, however, it is clear that the system of training was also very much at fault, and the two factors were very much related, officers who were either apathetic or simply did not realise what would be required of them on campaign, would not instill into their regiments the training which was required; bitter experience was needed before they ceased to be "ignorant barrack soldiers". - PHILIP HAYTHORNTHWAITE KUDOS FROM ENGLAND May I take this opportunity of thanking you for the very fair review of Navy Lists Volume One that your magazine gave me. I feel that U.S. gaming magazines are far superior to British magazines, when it comes to reviewing new products and publications. May I also take this opportunity of congratulating you upon your excellent magazine. I obtain stocks of it from Terry Wise at Athena Books and advertise it in my cagalogue. I also take it along to shows and conventions and never fail to sell at least two or three every time. - JOHN UENTON, RAIDER GAMES I only wish that the rest of the English hobbyists felt as you did, so that you could sell 20 or 30 (or 200) each time. - DICK BRYANT UNFAIR REVIEW OF ORIGINS '86 In response to your article in Vol. 7 #2 on ORIGINS '86, we feel that some points in the article are not fully explained, and that the comparisons made are unfair. To start off, neither the hotel or the convention had any control over the parking, but, as mentioned in the flyer, a reduced rate stamp was available to lower the fee for attendees. Also, this was posted at the front registration desk. The writers apparently did not see this posting at the front desk. As to the running of the events, the following needs to be brought out: 1. Norm Flam, of the Last Grenadier, ran our miniatures at ORIGINS. Mr. Flam freely gave of his time (just like the 350+ convention workers), and was at the mercy of those people promising much, but delivering little, and that too late. 2. ORIGINS informational packets were sent to all known game companies, and they included event sponsoring forms, but very few miniature companiestook the time or trouble to lend their support (The COURIER being one that did!). Therefore, any gripes about the lack of events should partially fall on the companies themselves, not on the convention, which ran as manyevents as we have the staff (which it does for free!) for. 3. Comparing ORIGINS'86 to either HMGS & LITTLE WARS is unfair because those are miniature conventions, while ORIGINS, like most conventions, tries to cover all aspects ofthe hobby. Again, those of you wanting to see more miniaturesat any ORIGINS must cooperate and coordinate with the officials. It's not that they don't want to run miniatures, it's just that the will to RUN events must be evident. 4. As for a lack of 25mm figures to buy, blame the companies for not having any there, not us. It's very strange to blame the convention for a lack of specific products to buy. 5. Your comment on Southern California being too far is unfair to the gamers who live in the Western United States. After all, don't we have to travel all the way to Baltimore for most ORIGINS? Isn't that unfair to us? So, as you can see, the article was very one-sided, and leaves out important information that the readership needs to know. if the miniature gamers think that we need help, the door is open. But The COURIER seems to be the only magazine that didn't like ORIGINS '86, --JEFF ALBANESE Director of Conventions, Diverse Talents Inc. Convention Events Manager, ORIGINS'86 Thank you for your comments on our review of ORIGINS'86. I shall try to address each of your points in order. First, please understand that our review is from the point of view of an Historical Miniature Wargamer and of what ORIGINS has to offer our side of the hobby. There is no doubt that ORIGINS has always beena GREAT convention for Board Garners and Fantasy Gainers. In fact, our main point is that the Historical Miniature Gameris not given anywhere nearas muchattentionas theotherareas ofthe wargaminghobby, even when taken inproporrion tonumbers. Thatis why we are so interested in howeach ORIGINS handles the Historical Miniature Gaming aspects of the convention. Now to your points: 1. The organizer for the miniatures had the same problem as did the other organizers at the convention, yet their parts of the hobby were very well represented. Are you saying that only Historical Miniatures Garners do not live up to their promises given? No. I'm sorry but I feel that the organizer did not properly manage his responsibilities and probably had to fight an uphill battle against the other organizers to give historical miniatures reasonable coverage. 2. It is the Historical Miniatures Organizer who has to go out and beat the bushes for events. It should have taken up several hundred hours of his spare time. You cannot rely on general advertising and flyers, unless they in some way get to historical wargame clubs by Nov/Dec of the year before ORIGINS. In every well done Historical only convention or well done Historicalpart of ORIGINS, the events were run by game clubs and individuals who have nothing to do'with companies (your board game slant is showing). Miniatures companies seldom put on demonstrations; they offer prizes to be distributed usually at large. If your organizer was waiting for Historical Miniature supply companies to put on all the games, no wonder there were very few events. 3. As I said in the first paragraph, I was only comparing the Historical Miniatures events against HMGS and Little Wars. if properly done, they should stand comparison very well because of the logistical support and resources that they should be able to get from the ORIGINS organizers. 4. We were blaming the manufacturers for not bringing more 25's. However there is some evidence (albeit hearsay) that the Historical Eyent organizer has some commercial prejudice against 25mm figures! 5. The comment was that "Southern California is too far to go for SOME gamers"(my emphasis). I thought that the whole reason that ORIGINS moves around the country is because no matter where it is, it's too far for SOME gamers to go to. The point being made was that the Ancients tourney was relatively poorly attended. Thereare very large Ancient period gaming groups east of the Mississippi who would not attend. 6. If the article was one-sided it was because ORIGINS was one-5ided! The major bone of contention that Historical Gamers have with ORIGINS is this one-sidedness against Miniatures, Some East Coast ORIGINS organizers will tell anyone who will listen that historical miniatures gamers are not needed at ORIGINS. As long as that view holds among those who win an ORIGINS venue, this magazine will carefully scrutinize how ORIGINS handles the Historical Miniature gaming side of the hobby and report it to our constituents. - DICK BRYANT <>PHIL BARKER ON 7TH I enjoyed reading T.L. Gore's account of his first 7th edition game (Vol. VII - No. 1). He is not the first to delay his faster troops by placing them behind slower, and maybe accounts of some other disasters I have witnessed will encourage him. Most of them have happened to 6th edition competition players, of a sort that know that rule set inside out and backward, but not given to thinking in terms of real warfare. For example, there was the player who, forced to march on in column, put his C-in-C and all his cavalry with the rearmost of his three commands. By the time they arrived on table and could start changing orders, the head of his column was surrounded by horse archers with no room to deploy being shot to pieces. I find it hard to imagine a real life general failing to send mounted scouts ahead or to press forward to a vantage point. Another sent two auxiliary cohorts ahead to be overwhelmed by several times their number. They fought valiantly, waiting for the supports in easy reach that were never sent. Finally, they broke, and being two in number inflicted 2 simultaneous waver tests on a legionary cohort to their rear which threw 1 and 2 to give a third break to be seen by several more cohorts! A more common variant is to leave front line units in action until they become exhausted instead of relieving them with fresh. There was also the player who rested his army's flank on a low ridge without even putting a unit on top of it. Seeing this, the other player withdrew cavalry from his far rank, marched it across the field and brought it up on top of said ridge. I learned about that from a phone call complaining about the unfairness of his behavior. So far, only one battle has been reported to me as lost by an unreliable general, although one player told me yesterday that after eleven games, he still hadn't achieved a bold subordinate. That one case was a classic. When the unreliable general went on strike, the player instead of sorting him out, charged his C-in-C and only other general into the enemy - who immediately killed him. This left the treacherous general as the sole surviving commander, a situation we had NOT envisaged. The new dicing system for irregular "A" is having an interesting effect. They are not breaking any more units, but are being treated by opponents with enormous respect just in case they throw a big plus and add 2 to it. Wargamers never did believe very firmly in the law of probability. It is now exactly 12 months since the rules went to the printer. I don't know of any 15mm or 6mm players still using 6th, but there are, maybe, one quarter or one third holdouts among 25mm competition players who maintain that 1,200 points of 25mm is impractical on a 6x4 foot table. just to nail that one, we did a demonstration game at Northern Militaire with one player and 3,600 points a side, ended by a resignation after two hours. A refight with three players a side then took four hours. Sorry I can't comment on success vis a vis Newbury and Shock (dull thud?) of Impact. I've never seen either set played with except by their authors. The trouble with cross-referencing is that it takes space. We have to work in multiples of 8 pages, and we are right on the limit for 48 pages. A new state-of-the-art computer instead of our pedestrian IBM clone and its Messy-DOS would be nice, but if we had the money, we would spend it on a laser printer instead. - PHIL BARKER Back to Table of Contents -- Courier Vol. VII #4 To Courier List of Issues To MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1987 by The Courier Publishing Company. This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com