New Washington, D.C. Area Gaming Group

A few of us from the Ambush Alley/Force on Force forum have started a new WDC area group for gaming AA/FoF and a variety of other rules. It looks like we'll be meeting in the Palisades area of Northwest D.C., which is convenient to close-in Northern Virginia.

Join us if this interests you.

Google Group here: http://groups.google.com/group/dc-gaming-group

The Skulking Way of War

Malone, Patrick M. The Skulking Way of War: Technology and Tactics among the New England Indians. Lanham, Md.: Madison Books, 1991.

At just 132 pages, of which about 100 are text and the rest notes and related back matter, this is not a thick tome. But, its length belies its erudition and usefulness. In a nutshell, it examines the cultural-military encounter of Indians and whites in colonial New England in the period between the Pequot War (1636-1637) and King Philip’s War (1675-1676). At the beginning of this period, the Indians had few, if any firearms; by the end, most had flintlock muskets and carbines, like the whites. Moreover, they had effectively integrated firearms into their aboriginal, “skulking way of war” and forced the whites in response to adopt the irregular tactics they had scorned in their earlier encounters with the natives.

The author tellingly quotes the observation of one of the white leaders, made after King Philip’s War: “In our first war with the Indians [the Pequot War], God pleased to show us the vanity of our military skill, in managing our arms, after the European mode. Now we are glad to learn the skulking way of war.”

I originally wanted to read this book for insights into native weapons, organization and tactical doctrine, which it provides aplenty. In addition, I found much that was new to me on how the Indians acquired firearms, despite the most stringent prohibitions, and how the whites used native auxiliaries in their military encounters with Indian adversaries.

The book is also copiously illustrated, and the annotated footnotes are most useful, particularly if one wanted to investigate specific subjects in depth.

Wallenstein’s Lifeguard: The Mounted Companies

Above: Sketch of a lancer of Wallenstein’s Lifeguard (K. A. Wilke)

Imperialist generalissimo Albrecht von Wallenstein (1583-1634) was one of the most compelling, enigmatic figures thrown up by the Thirty Years’ War. A Czech, he rose from relative obscurity to command a large military establishment and amass a vast fortune. When he grew “overmighty,” he was removed from command, charged with high treason, and ultimately murdered by officers loyal to the emperor.

Like most general officers of the time, he had a lifeguard unit, although in his case it was actually an establishment of foot and mounted companies that was large by any standard.

I was reminded of this recently when fellow blogger Timur at De Rohan à Turenne (http://rohanturenne.blogspot.com/) posted watercolors of the lancer company of the mounted guard, and I remembered that I had a file containing a brief article on the lifeguard. Here is the reference:

Freier, Dr. Walter. “Die Leibgarden Wallensteins.” Alte und neue Zinnfiguren, 1970 nr. 8, 165-67.

According to this article, the mounted lifeguard originally (1625) consisted of two companies of mounted arquebusiers (Simonetti and von Haugwitz). Later, this was increased to four (late 1627), and then five (1628), although the fifth company (dragoons) probably belonged to Count Ottavio Piccolomini, the commander of the lifeguard and was his own lifeguard.

The five companies together numbered 500, indicating that each company was 100 strong. From late 1628, it appears that the four actual companies of the lifeguard were one each of lancers, arquebusiers, dragoons, and Croatians. They were described as having a “magnificent” appearance. A second arquebusier company was added subsequently, increasing the number of mounted companies, including Piccolomini’s, to six.

The number of companies, horse and foot, of the lifeguard was ten when Wallenstein was removed from command in September 1630. During the period of his second Generalitate, the lifeguard consisted only of two companies of arquebusiers.

The Vedette

Here are a couple images from the fall 1974 issue of The Vedette: Journal of the National Capital Military Collectors. These depict a trumpeter of Bavarian horse, c. 1701 (cover illustration) and Bavarian cuirassier officers of the 1680s (top). The drawings were done by Jay S. Swingle, based on sketches by Dr. A. Benkert, to illustrate an article on "The Riders of the Blue King."

This was a quality journal with distinguished contributors.

Early Italian Wars: Ratio of Espingarderos to Ballesteros

Above: 10mm Conquistador Arquebusiers from Obelisk Miniatures http://www.obeliskminiatures.com/ These are suitable for the Italian Wars.

One of my projects this winter is to work-up scenarios for several battles of the Italian Wars and part of that is to return to the age-old question of the composition of the armies, particularly those of the Early Italian Wars and the campaigns in Naples.

An early, somewhat thorny problem is the ratio of espingarderos (hand-gunners and arquebusiers) to ballesteros (crossbowmen) in the Spanish expeditionary armies. Thorny because, while most of the time the Spanish tell us how many arquebusiers were part of a particular force, the crossbowmen were counted among the pikemen.

Working from several standard sources, I was able to determine the following ratios:

The ratio of firearms to crossbows in an Imperial force organized to fight the Hussites in 1431 was 1:1

The Emperor Maximilian eliminated the crossbow in the Imperial armies in 1507.

The ratio of espingarderos to ballesteros in some later armies of the Spanish Reconquest

1483 1:6 (handguns:crossbows)
1489 1:4

This data is quite interesting when compared to the ratio in Italy a few years later. In the space of a decade, the ratio is reversed. These were the first Spanish expeditionary armies organized on the new model.

1500: 4:1
1501: 3:1

American Artillery in the Mexican War

Dillon, Lester R., Jr. American Artillery in the Mexican War, 1846-1847. Austin, Tex.: Presidial, 1975.

“American artillery dominated the battlefields of the Mexican War. In this conflict, America’s first foreign war, a new and elite corps of artillery was blooded in the crucible of battle, and a proven combat arm emerged with firm doctrine and the eminent esteem of both the nation and its military leadership.” – from the Preface

This excellent survey is, to my knowledge, the only work that deals specifically with the subject. It is rather on the small side but written in a spare, matter-of-fact style by a retired officer who well understood the subject in all of its metes and bounds.

It has just five chapters:

I. Prelude to Conflict
II. Cannon and Cannoneers
III. Taylor’s Army of Occupation
IV. The Heartland
V. Artillery and Victory

In addition, besides front matter, it has biographical sketches of many of the officers who later became prominent in the Civil War, a glossary, bibliography, and endnotes.

Having read it, I can now understand the source of the artillery genius of the great Civil War cannoneers like Henry J. Hunt and John Pelham (who of course was too young to fight in the Mexican War but was a worthy descendant of Ringgold, Duncan, Taylor, and Washington, who took the light batteries to war in 1846-47).

Confederate M-1841 6-lb. SBML

This light smoothbore field gun was an outstanding piece during the US-Mexican War and large numbers continued in use during the early years of the Civil War, gradually giving way to more powerful guns. In the western theaters, they were prominent in the Confederate forces rather longer than in the Union for obvious reasons. While most were brass, this gun has an iron tube, a pattern not uncommon in the Confederate armies.

Since many 6-lbrs. were bored out and fitted with a rifled tube liner, converting them to 12-lb. RMLs of the James pattern, this model can do service as a James rifle.

The gun model and figures are by Stone Mountain Miniatures.

Contemporary sources list the following frontages for typical Civil War batteries (depth in each case is 47 yards):

Mounted or horse battery of 6 guns (3 platoons): 82 yards (typical US)
Mounted or horse battery of 4 guns (2 platoons): 62 yards (typical CS)

In my rules, the ground scale is 1-in. (25mm) = 100 meters. Most 15mm models cannot be reasonably accommodated if these frontages are adapted to the ground scale, so I suggest using a 1-in. x 1-in. base for a 4-gun bty. and a 1½-in. (front) x 1-in. base for a 6-gun bty. The 4-gun bty. has 2 figs. to represent the 2 ptns. or sections; while the 6-gun bty. has 3 figs.