My long term project to play English civil War in 54MM is still in the "Research and Development" phase. I have come up with rules after doing my homework. I found a mix of figures which was not easy to do, since essentially only one company in 54mm makes them (and almost no cavalry is available yet). A few stout gaming pals are starting to paint them up in 25 figure color coded regiments, which will be able to play on either side, depending on the scenario. I would like to thank Editor Hal and the other contributors for the recent multi-issue discussion on ECW/TYW bibliography. Thanks also to Brother Glidden for his insightful article in MWAN #96, which was in response to my cry for information in what is an entirely new period for me. The books I've found are great on politics, economics, religion, strategy, abilities of commanders, geography, technology of weapons, flags and clothing (this period gets my Most Amazing costuming of All Time Award!). Unfortunately, as Brother Glidden pointed out, little work has been done on the tactics of the conflict. So after reading his article recently, the following dialogue took place between myself and my fellow MWANer (and Green Regiment Painter), Stuart Schoenberger- CE: I especially liked Brother Glidden's idea of common tactical doctrine based on what type of enemy unit your troops are facing. He began to suggest that how infantry or cavalry acted depended on who they were facing locally. It reminds me of other period doctrine--for example, of Napoleonic infantry adopting a square as a standard defense against cavalry. But how would we fill in a grid for each type of unit to determine their possible/most likely responses to different types of enemy units? If this hasn't been done, I don't understand how so many people can have been gaming this period for years, especially in England, without agreement on what basic tactics were used. SS: We know what the forest looked like, but not the trees. So an ECW wargame is experimenting with tactics, just as the real life ECW captains were doing. They started out untrained, just as in our own ACW, and learned on the job. CE: That should make for some interesting games! SS: It has more to do with gaming than with history, though. C.E: The bibliography I've found so far is very tentative about tactics. I think we'd want to know what a normal unit would try to accomplish facing an enemy unit in a standard tactical situation. Their ability to do it is another question altogether. But how can we even make accurate rules--and between us this year we've examined a number of sets--unless we know what a formation was trying to accomplish? For instance, was the "push of pike" the ultimate infantry aim, like the bayonet charge after the secondary effect of musketry fire in the next historical period? It would make sense that this tactic with musket and pike would evolve into its later replication with the bayonet. It is also indicative that everyone carried a sword for melee--obviously they expected to use them. Another phenomenon remarked upon was that the infantrymen were always cutting down their pikes, despite the pleas of their officers. Now the officers' commentary seemed to indicate they didn't want to carry the long things. But what if the soldiers wanted to use them more fruitfully for close combat? In an earlier period England's medieval peasants or town militia called their simple pole weapons "Brown Bill," after many of them which actually were agricultural bills being used as weapons in their backup troop formations. We also know that in a the Musket Period after ECW musket soldiers called their guns "Brown Bess." Obviously the phallic shape of a pole weapon contrasts with the receiving barrel container of a firearm. (Which further has to be rammed down to load--but enough sex, we're discussing a British subject). The coordinated use of Bill and Bess in the ECW period remains unclear. In what circumstances and formations did Pikeman and Musketeer work together? What basic formation deployments were used? How did separate sections of Bess and Bill compliment each other, and in what cases might they intermingle? I hope someone can give me some information. otherwise a lazy player might just elect to play the gunners. Placing artillery which cannot be moved during the battle and blasting away with hail or round shot at targets of opportunity seems like an easier task to envision than commanding musket, pike, and cavalry on the field! On the other hand, like the name of my first draft rules, would the pikemen in a group in the center wait on defense--carefully watching local enemy cavalry squadrons nearby-- while the musketeers would "Stand and Deliver" enough f ire to seriously discomfort the enemy? (Yes, its a highwaymen's cry, but I like it in this context too) . In this case, when the enemy cavalry charged or approached, did the pikes spread out to cover the musketeers, or the musketeers pull back around the pikes while they were lowered to provide a hedgehog of points, bristling in defense? CE: Well, some actions were more likely than others. For example, infantry rarely charged cavalry, you'd think, but it happened. Cavalry would not want to charge pikes from the front, but it might from the flank. Cavalry couldn't successfully exchange caracole pistol fire with musketeers, if the muskets were loaded, because the long arms would have the range advantage. Unless the situation was somehow otherwise weighted against the musketeers. But if the cavalry absolutely had to hurt the infantry, they might charge with the sword, as Brother Glidden suggests they did. I recall an odd turn of phrase during the description of one battle--that infantry was sent out "escorted by cavalry," as if the infantry, if caught cross country alone, would be routinely slaughtered. Yet the supposedly superior cavalry, which made up a large proportion of both armies in the ECW, had a tough time. Even if it defeated the enemy cavalry, it rarely had the discipline to "turn in" against the flanks of the remaining enemy--the "weaker" infantry. In which case, what was the point of it all? Paddy Griffith makes a similar case of helplessness for American civil war infantry. Since ACW fresh troops were unable to execute a "passage of lines" and go through blown friendly units to keep up an assault, the whole effort was wasted. In other words, the troops were rarely able to decisively beat the enemy tactically, because the offensive would fall apart during the crescendo of the attack. Suggestively, this leaves us with an indecisive battle, the very frequent historical outcome in both civil wars. For gainers, however, this is about as much fun as marching shoulder to shoulder against machine guns and artillery in 1914-16 (and I'm the only nut I know who tried that on a large scale, using the old Airfix 1/72 figures)! So we can't let the ECW foot soldiers just stand there watching while the cavalry fights by itself. As we are swept along with the bloodthirsty shouting English reenactors in videotaped simulated engagements, who we see charging forward furiously on foot with sword and gunbutt, we must assume that their historical counterparts also wanted to take a hand in their fate if circumstance allowed. It would be extremel useful if some ECW recreationists would write up their tactical conclusions; I've learned a lot this way about ACW practical battlefield matters! Unfortunately, although the Sealed Knot Society's first visit to the USA occurred recently, they are not still around to speak with US. Did you folks who hosted them down South learn anything? Like the ACW, the ECW must have seen a brittle amateur unit morale slowly replaced by experience, while at the same time veterans decreased in number through casualties. The battle descriptions tell us that different local victories and defeats occurred within a single large engagement. While the Parliamentarians were successful on one flank, the Royalists surged forward on the other. When a center line collapsed, the availability and willingness of reserves to enter the fray counted. But the "normal" interaction between enemy infantry and cavalry units facing each other (along with the occasional artillery piece) remains a mystery, to our group at least, to be discovered at a future date on the field of battle. I expect that both sides will try different doctrines out, which will make the rather similar forces on either side act quite differently in practice. may the Ruperts and Cromwells emerge,, using their own favorite tactics. Let the cavalry who has broken through by the sword now try its pistols in pursuit of a broken foe; while those who have used up their pistol fire breaking through their own opponents pursue with the sword. This is how one author envisioned the main difference between Royalist and Roundhead cavalry. And let the infantry, when it deems the crucial moment has arrived, charge forward as well. But beware--as at Hastings in 1066, once the line is dispersed it may not be able to form once more. Bound the pipe and drum; and may the best (or luckiest) prevail Huzzah! ECW BIBLIOGRAPHY *Asquith, Stuart and Warner, Chris Now Model ARMY 1645-60. Osprey Men At Arms #110, 1981. * Bartlett, Thomas, and Jeffrey, Keith (ods.) A Militau Histn::y of Ireland. Cambridge University Press, 1996. * Cromwell Productions, The English Civil Wars: By The Sword Divided. (video 47 min.), 1996. * Featherstone, Donald Wargaming Pike and Shot. Hippocrene Books. 1977. *Hathomthwaite, Philip The English Civil Wars 1642-165 1: An Illustrated Military History. Arrns and Armour, 1994 (1983). *Roberts, Keith and McBride, Angus Soldiers of the English Civil Warc (1) Infantry. Osprey Elite Series #25, 1989. * Tincey, John and McBride, Angus Soldiers of the English Civil War 2: Cavalry. Osprey Elite Series #27, 1990. (Also covers artillery). * Tucker, John and Winstock, Lewis The English Civil War: A Military Handbook. Stackpole Books, 1972. (Forward by Brigadier Peter Young). ECW 54MM PLASTIC FIGUREOGRAPHY This basically does not exist yet, but try collecting if you're creative, and as crazy as I am! You end up with lots of swordsmen--play them as either (1) short of weapons or (2) With other primary weapons but shown whilst in pursuit of a broken enemy (see article above). I like to mix up the different styles among my regiments. Here's what I've found so far. Hopefully more figures will be Atlantic: Large archaic cannon, sold with ACW/WWII sets. Britains: Long ago made two now super rare figures--a mounted man and one musketeer. If you have friends among employees of the company or in the British Royal Family, you might be able to find them; I've never seen them except in photos! Don't expect to be able to afford them. If you can, send me a couple--I'll gladly pay the postage! Call To Arms: Command Set (General,flagbearerr, piper and drummer for both sides), Parliamentary Musketeers,, Royalist Musketeers, Pikemen (Generic). Artillery guns and crows due out in 1999. Best figures for period, but lines still incomplete. Cherleia: Elizabethans, Highlanders, Roundheads and Cavaliers (a few poses of the latter only). Jecsan: French Musketeers, including a few mounted poses. Monarch: Conquistadores, including a gunner pose with lighted torch. Plastic Warrior: one mounted lobsterback and one musketeer, with variant arms or heads included for variation. Reams ( or possibly Jecsan) : 60mm. Conquistadores, including a few mounted poses, one in heavy "cuirassier" minor. Back to MWAN #98 Table of Contents Back to MWAN List of Issues Back to MagWeb Magazine List © Copyright 1999 Hal Thinglum 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