Armoured Pikemen

One of the difficulties of entering into wargaming for this specific period and particularly the Dutch Wars period is the lack of readily available publications. I feel it really is a period on the cusp at this time of being 'unlocked' by researchers in order that the specific details of uniforms and equipment become available to the wider sub-culture - the wargamer. Certainly this is a problem area in the meantime looking for details about the Dutch and it seems probable that most if not all of our answers remain locked in the mass of emerging archival material.

Having spent some time on the Netherlands Army website this date I took the time to read an article by F.G Wilde on De mannen van 1688: een poging tot reconstructie (available in pdf) which I was able to read paragraph by paragraph thanks to the wonders of Internet translation software - what an amazing age we live in.

Wilde certainly has the Dutch pike by the outbreak of war in 1672 as 'largely' armoured - helmet and half-armour to be precise. Whilst no specific analysis is applied to the discontinuation of armour, it might be surmised that discarding of half-armour would have accelerated as a result of William's reforms in the face of French superiority over the following years.

By 1674 we see the musketeers (line regiments presumably) carrying the bandolier or twelve apostles and thus we can presume the matchlock. It seems that there was no reason why flintlock armed men might not continue the use of the bandolier with its measures of powder during the period of transition to the uptake of cartridges. The flintlock should not necessarily mean a move towards cartridges for our period but so far I have seen no examples either illustrated or modelled that allow for bandoliers with flintlocks. If anyone can show me, I'd be beholden. Wilde has the uptake of cartridges 'later' than 1674. Given that by then the marines, Guards and grenadiers were flintlock armed, I'd say there is room in the sculpting world for this inclusion.

Research Tips & Future Intent

Research Tips

Anyone wishing to delve deeper into this period or those who have already done so will soon become familiar with the issues surrounding the identification of individuals and units. Whilst search engines of various types within the World Wide Web are an invaluable tool, their limitations are soon determined around issues of spelling. Now I'm no linguist - I speak and write in only one language and at an average level at best - but when looking into this particular period for continental military details, sources or even references within English sources draw upon Dutch, German and French spelling variants which can confuse the monolingual researcher.

By way of example, I was looking for a Colonel Proprietor (Kolonel) for a Dutch regiment by the name of Sander which, whilst obvious to others did not register in my mind as a continental variant of Alexander until all the other details lined up and I enjoyed that 'Aha' moment. There's also the aristocratic titles which vary across the European nations which, if known, may give a tip to the variance in a particular title holder's name.

Then there's the spelling. Again, I'm not particularly knowledgeable about the evolution of languages other than English but if comparable, within these various languages there will be variations in spelling as no standardisation had been achieved at this time. This all confuses the amateur researcher and you can't be too ready to declare a person or unit as present or not at a particular conflict according to 'the record' until other possibilities are exhausted. Also, whilst admittedly reliant upon the previous work of others, one needs to be ever mindful of the possible adoption and repetition of errors and the conversion of theory or supposition to accepted fact over time. My old university training in historical principles always remind me to seek primary over secondary and tertiary sources always - but even first hand accounts can be in error.

I suppose what I'm saying is that I am bound to have missed stuff as I go along and I can't emphasise enough the need amongst us (the small community of interested wargamers) to share knowledge and ideas whilst we assemble a more detailed picture of this previously ignored period of military history.

Future Intent

I will move onto the French order of battle at Seneffe next but do so fearfully. My principle interest for this period is the Dutch and this will be my first army but I do want to build the opposition simultaneously - a demi-brigade each at a time. I would like to guarantee that I will similarly attack the Spanish and Imperial forces but we shall see. Somehow I doubt it. I say I am fearful about the French order of battle because I have not as yet ventured into research here and I doubt I'll be as fortunate to have a French equivalent of the Dutch Regiments Website. Then again, much has been written in the journals of Wargames Illustrated over time on the French army of this period so I may be pleasantly surprised. If anyone has some good website recommendations for me or other works done which is available, please let me know.

Pending Posting

Sensitive to the fact that I have been deathly quiet on the blogging front I thought I'd advise that a pending detailed Order of Battle (Orbat) is forth coming for the battle of Seneffe (1674). I'm beginning with the Dutch (United Provinces) principally due to the fact that this will be my first army of the period. As soon as this is fully developed I will commence some significant purchases and endeavour to complete at least my first battalion to demonstrate how the units will appear under this system and my preferred troop scale. Following will be the French, then back to allies with the Imperial forces and Spanish.
The nature of the Order of Battle will be in some detail. I'll go as deep as I can, identifying Kolonel Commandants, regimental numbers and a limited time line with former and subsequent unit and Kolonel Proprietor names which should enable easier identification for those afficianadoes who might cross reference important details like uniform and standards/colours. Certainly that's what I will be doing and will be relying on Sapherson as my earliest point of reference on uniforms.

I've chosen Seneffe due to the breadth of options for units fielded by all sides and having been fought in 1674 puts it nicely within my first period (Early Dutch War) for which I have already generated Dutch and French lists.

I'm drawing on several resources and cross checking them for consistency and will cite them accordingly - not expecting or wanting anyone to take my research at face value. As far as research goes, it is more a collation of the work of others for whome I will credit and link when possible to other sites. As always, I encourage anyone to comment and criticise so I can polish the lists if necessary.

Confounding

It was brought to my attention by my Goulburn Wargames Group colleague Matt Williamson that my basing convention graphics may be misplacing the command element. What I said? How do you know?

He's on the hunt for his source and some diagrams which accompany it which, when possessed, will be uploaded immediately. In the meantime I'll draw any reader's attention to the fact when deployed to give fire, it may be that the command element moved back, with pikes to the front centre.

Stay tuned.

Army Building: Example of costs & calculations

Army Building

Basing Convention: French

French Basing Convention V1

Book Review: From Pike to Shot

Remembering an age before the Internet, Charles S Grant provided the wargamer with the single most readily available and concise coverage of later seventeenth century warfare and armies in From Pike to Shot 1685-1720. Published in 1986 by the Wargames Research Group, this book helped almost everyone who commenced wargaming the Wars of the Grand Alliance and Spanish  Succession for the last 25 years.

Of much greater application to the Nine Years War campaigns, this book provides the starting point for collecting all central and western European armies of the late seventeenth century period - a separate volume covering the Swedes and the Russians, focusing on the Great Northern War.

Of only fleeting reference for the evolution of warfare preceeding 1685, Grant spends invaluable space on the Monmouth rebellion and well as the Boyne and Irish campaign. Again, the campaign detail tends toward the Anglo experience but as far as regimental lists and uniform details are concerned, it is an almost universal cornerstone for the mid to late Williamite period. For that reason it provides an essential starting point from which to work backwards for earlier campaigns.

Whilst other works have since been published and the Internet has emerged as an invaluable tool for the military researcher, Williamite Warfare was nevertheless drafted with this book never far from reach. Highly recommended.

Book Review: Warfare in the Age of Marlborough

Research for the period 1672-98 within the English language is more often a matter of picking the asides from works which straddle the military history either side of it. This is principally the reason for including The Art of Warfare in the Age of Marlborough by Professor David Chandler. In presenting his analysis of warfare which concentrates on the War of the Spanish Succession, Chandler discusses, sometimes in considerable detail, the developments and reforms taking place over the preceding twenty or so years leading up to Marlborough's campaigns.

Of particular interest is his approach to the separate arms of warfare; artillery, cavalry and infantry, through which he provides considerable detail for this period. Indeed, without this work, Williamite Warfare's coverage on artillery of the various armies would be found significantly wanting. As with so much analysis of warfare across this period, Chandler does not specifically concentrate upon those campaigns preceding John Churchill's ascendancy - that of his sponsor and King, William III.

There is some criticism, likely warranted, that Chandler is too Anglo-centric in his treatment of cause and effect for Marlborough's victories and his effective dismissal of the true role the United Provinces had in providing the bulk of the army and considerable logistic support. Certainly, this work tends toward a focus on French and English examples throughout and those looking for a greater understanding of the Dutch or Austrian war machines (for example) will need to look further afield.

This book continues in almost perpetual publication, widely available at a reasonable price. It can always be found in any half-decent library. This is simply a must-have for anyone interested in military history of our period of that following it.

Book Review: Anatomy of Victory

It would be unfair and unreasonable not to review what has become a modern historical classic on the subject of military analysis for the late seventeen century. First published in 1992, Brent Nosworthy was one of the first and only military historians of the English speaking world to concentrate on this period of warfare and without this work, I'd have been well and truly without a light to guide me.

The Anatomy of Victory: Battle Tactics 1689-1763, whilst not exclusively dedicated to the late seventeenth century and not concentrating on the period immediately preceding the Nine Years War nevertheless covers in some detail developments throughout the seventeenth century which culminated in linear warfare - the subject of this text.

Whilst by no means exclusively, Williamite Warfare relies on much of Nosworthy's referencing which has been extensively corroborated across all resources available to me. The only deficiencies from my perspective is that this work, whilst casting an invaluable back-shadow over the late seventeenth century, is nevertheless not about the proto-linear Williamite period. Gaps are still apparent when seeking answers to all the essential questions and because of this, for me this is not the ultimate text or last work on the subject.

I can highly recommend it to anyone interested in this period. It is currently out of print and you'll not get much change out of AUD100.00. Having said that, if your interest extends no further than the turn of the eighteen century, then only a third to half of this book would be of interest. Happily, it is often stocked in major academic and research libraries.

Alternate Rules Review: BLB (I)

Currently, Beneath the Lily Banners (BLB) 2 is gaining significant traction amongst gamers of this period following hard on from the original Beneath the Lily Banners (I) pictured above. Released commercially in 2008 from a long standing freely available product, these rules are the creation of Barry Hilton of the League of Augsburg wargaming group - a collection of gentlemen with a significant international reputation in 17th and 18th century wargaming.

Since starting this blog I have had a few recommendations concerning these rules which has an enthusiastic following. Those that are using it just love it and it has certainly done much to engender and interest in the Williamite period. I have not yet read through the second edition so I am as yet unable to comment on why the changes were necessary, but from the first edition I can hazard a guess as there appears to be an inconsistency and even deficiency or two between the pages.

I do not intend to critique BLB in terms of worthiness; however, and I am certainly not intending to be critical. To have generated a set of rules is no mean feat and to have them published as professionally as Mr Hilton has done lends this edition sufficient gravitas for them not to be dismissed by anyone. I certainly won't be. What I do want to discuss is the major differences between this rule set and Williamite Warfare, largely stemming from a divergent approach. In essence, those differences are four-fold.

Firstly, BLB is a fast-play set. Naturally, it relies on simplified mechanisms to achieve outcomes in order for a reasonable sized game to be played in a reasonable time-frame. This in itself has a lot to recommend it in my view but very much depends upon what sort of wargamer you are. For me, wargaming is the catalyst for building and painting, whilst for others, the game itself is all important. Like Williamite Warfare, ground scale is not a consideration in BLB; however, it does dictate unit sizes and basing conventions. Any rule set must make compromises somewhere and for me some national characteristics and detail for the Williamite period is lost and therefore for my purposes BLB is lacking in what I very much wanted to concentrate on. Having said that, I reckon it would be fun to play - perhaps the most important consideration!

Secondly, and connected to the fast play theory, BLB is element centric rather than figure reliant. In contrast, WAB and Williamite Warfare calculates upon the figure - dicing for each. BLB calculates against the element or base which through the rules convention dictates the number of figures on each. Again, the compromise here is for fast-play and I think players need to appreciate that the more dice you roll, the better average result you can obtain. For example, I'm a famous roller of '1s' but I will get some results if rolling for each figure in an eighteen figure battalion rather than just one dice for the lot - the BLB convention.

Getting back to the issue of national characteristics; BLB takes away from army differences in its core rules and creates a standardized army concept for all nations. Battalions are essentially 3-4 stands of musketeers and up to one of pike depending upon period. All stands are arrayed in only two ranks and this is consistently applied. Personally, I think calculation based on elements or bases has a lot to recommend it, I have thought about this myself and I believe it an essential cornerstone for fast play rules - especially around larger scale engagements. Having said that, I have never found WAB wanting and in fact it is still yet the best system for applying to small and larger games. For truly large engagements; however, in re fighting entire battles I think elements would have to be the system of choice.

The generic battalion representation represents all armies throughout a 60 year period in essentially the same linear formations as Napoleonic wargames - infantry battalions in a two rank firing line. Some of this stems from the 1:35 troop scale BLB is designed for. My own, perhaps perverse adherence to 1:20 provides for larger battalions and my Dutch battalions for WSS are arrayed three deep - entirely reminiscent of the period. Depth of formations was far greater still for the Williamite periods, beginning to thin by the end but never as far as the thin-red-line of the Seven Years War and beyond. Depths also varied greatly between nationalities.

The third major difference between BLB and Williamite Warfare is that Williamite Warfare delineates between emerging and experimental fire delivery systems for infantry between nations. The transition between Carolocole, Fire by Ranks, Platoon Firing and so on does introduce a level of depth but also complexity which may prove counter-productive in fast-play wargaming. BLB also does not differentiate between technologies; particularly noticeable if searching for matchlock verses flintlock firearms and drill. In BLB, a battalion pretty well fights in 1660 as it does in 1720 whereas a battalion within one army in Williamite Warfare will have changed significantly between campaigns over just thirty years in how it is constituted, the formations it uses, how it is armed and how it gives fire.

The fourth obvious difference is that BLB makes a lot of decisions behind its mechanisms and conventions based on an understanding and feel for the period. Barry Hilton and the League of Augsburg have that in spades. A significant amount of historical perspective has nevertheless been sacrificed to provide a blanket system over such a large period of time. Having said that, it's no more or less than previous systems have done - Wargames Research Group having been masters of the art. By contrast, Williamite Warfare continues the WAB style of explaining why rules mechanisms exist. For example, only one in two matchlocks may fire in a given turn due to recorded reliability issues surrounding misfires and the complexity of matchlock drill - this is stated in the core rules. Players may not agree with this interpretation on matchlock effectiveness or may think that a one in two ratio is too severe. The readers of Williamite Warfare have an advantage in that they may dismiss a mechanism or convention with knowledge and an awareness of how it affects the balance of what they are trying to represent - at least I hope so.

In a nutshell, I think BLB and Williamite Warfare are two distinct types of wargames rules - not competing sets. Vive la difference!

Why WAB & WECW?

I was just reading a discussion thread on the new release of Beneath the Lilly Banners 2 which, from my understanding, hits this period square on. There was much 'passionate' discussion about simultaneous movement which, I gather, features within that set. As you may gather, I have no experience of this system. It follows on from another observation of mine that many wargamers tend to follow trends and invest a lot of time in keeping up with new release rule sets.

None of these features of the hobby and those involved in it ever made much sense to me. I'm certainly not disagreeing with peoples preferences and interest in rule mechanisms but I certainly fall squarely into the camp of, 'If you like something - stick with it'. I suppose this is why I've gone to the effort of adapting WAB and WECW specifically because it is a system which I have grown familiar with over the past ten years and quite like. It is also one which I hope I am demonstrating is open to adaptation and variation.

There has been concern expressed that WAB is somehow a dead format as no new supplements are due for release in the foreseeable future. Some have shown  that it is time to move on to the latest thing in rules and lists which will be supported by a publisher with ongoing releases. Perhaps this is a WAB thing and that such a commercial approach had engendered that expectation amongst younger or newer wargamers who have entered the hobby over the past decade or so.

I have certainly decided to stick with a system I know. More importantly, I'm sticking with one I enjoy. I don't tend to experience the frustrations others seem to about rules and see nothing wrong with 'house rules' or one-off scenario rules to cover any specific characteristic of a battle or campaign. I certainly am not of the school of thought which demands that a rule system cover every and all eventualities from life as represented on the table-top.

So, if there are gaps in any of my lists or core rules amendments, please feel free to change them and especially share them.

A Word on Ground Scale

A contributor on TMP (The Miniatures Page) commented on the Williamite Warfare adaptation with a cautionary note on taking into account the required ground scale. This is something I have never bothered about in the past - but then again I have not bothered to draft publicly available rules before. After discussions with my partner in crime Matthew, we are probably not going to this time either, so I apologise to anyone looking forward to that consideration because I doubt you'll find it here.

Having said that, if anyone has a further adaptation and wants to forward it to me at any time, please feel free to do so and I will post it here for others to share. I can always receive contributions at Geebards@hotmail.com and will design some sub-forum within this Blog to accommodate contributions - should they prove forthcoming.

AND why are we of this temperament when it comes to ground scale? Mainly it has to do with or preferred figure scale - 28mm. It is unlikely that we would represent anything larger than a section of any battle at any one time. Even with several thousands of points, we are unlikely to assemble a whole army for the battles of this period - they were just too big. This has challenged our figure scale preference and I earnestly feel if I were ever to move toward 10mm armies, this would be my period of choice: but in addition to, not in lieu of 28mm.

Because we wargame in 28mm, I believe our level of gaming is a 'zoom-in' or battle snap-shot and because of that, relative distances, battalion coverage and so forth seem less important than if we were re-fighting a particular battle over a re-created battlefield in its entirety. Another issue is our representative troop scales within 28mm wargaming. In short, there's only so far you can reduce your frontage and depth with figures of these sizes. A 20mm frontage is about as low as you can go. In representing a battalion arrayed according to national doctrines, the frontages of a battalion are going to be pretty much dictated by the miniatures themselves.

I have long dabbled with the notion of bases being the essential unit element in the game. This is not novel in any way but a faster play system would rely on bases rather than figure counting - less dice etc. This way, we could festoon our bases with as many figures as we liked and the base dimension would dictate the figure numbers - not the other way around. Ground scale would be more relevant to our thinking in such a system. As Williamite Warfare is an adaptation of WECW; however, this is not an option for this project.

Improved Lists: The Specials

As predicted, having moved onto my second army list (The Early Franco-Dutch Wars French) I had cause to revisit the United Provinces list with a new and improved Version 2 (V2) being posted. Thanks to the suggestion of fellow Goulburn Wargames Group aficionado, Matt Williamson, the lists now include a series of Special Assets or non-staff Characters in the WAB style.

Having suggested a Preacher to fire up the rank and file, I have created the Firebrand - ministers of varying faiths, imbedded in the line to stiffen the resolve of the true believers - whomever they be. This got me creating a cast of Characters which now also include the Assassin and his nemesis, the Captain of the Guard. Also, I have created two new types which, whilst purchased are actually gifted (rather inflicted) onto your enemy. They are the 'Empty Wig' for want of a better description being a next to useless Brigadier, and the 'Courtesan' who hangs off the arm of your Commanding General with unfortunate consequences.

Hopefully these 'Specials' will introduce a bit of the period flavour and some fun into Williamite Warfare. It should also prove a catalyst for procuring some more curious figures.

Important Note: For those interested, you need to click on the header link with these Pdf attachments to open up the whole document.

United Provinces: Early Franco-Dutch Wars V2

United Provinces V2

First List

As earlier postings indicate, I had intended to get the core rules adaptation out first, followed by the lists. As it transpires, I wanted to get something up and running first. I have also found that in drafting my national army lists, it causes an editing sense check as part of the drafting process. So it's to be Army Lists first, rules second.

The first as you can see is the United Provinces for the early Franco-Dutch war. This will give an indication of what lies behind the thinking and a taste of the core rules. Apologies if this frustrates anyone. The next List to follow shortly will be the French for the same period. By the time that's finished, I'll be satisfied enough with the core rules to post the first draft.

Regretably this means some of the core mechanisms such as fire systems will not be readily understood for a while.

I'll emphasis here that all of this is up for discussion. Whilst I've researched this quite extensively, I'm not foolish enough to think that fellow wargamers with access to archives more extensive than I cannot contribute to our collective knowledge and force a re-draft. I am calling the first list V.1 (version one) and it's just that - the first workable draft (hopefully).

On that note, none of this has been play tested and is not likely to be by my group for some time. This site and the product associated with it is very much a moveable feast - a work in progress. If anyone wishes to do so when I have the first two lists and core adaptation available, I'd love to hear from you.

I've used old images freely available on the Internet to give the layout a little colour. I hope it reads well enough and inspires further interest. Stay tuned for the next list by the end of the month.

GWG Troop Scale

Council of War: William and his generals 1688

First things first, GWG stands for Goulburn Wargames Group. For those not familiar with Australian geography, Goulburn is a small inland city in the New South Wales central tablelands. As this Blog is specifically dedicated to Williamite Warfare and associated wargames armies, I thought I'd share one of the significant considerations surrounding the armies we intend to build first ... the representative troop scale and model scale.

Troop Scale

Troop scale is the representative ratio of models to real life soldiers or numbers actually fighting as far as we know. To begin with, my good friend Matt and I will begin with French and United Provinces armies for the late Dutch wars period - for around 1675-8. Normally for a shot or musket army of almost any period we look to the size of the infantry battalion as our main collecting indicator. Later regarded as the 'Queen of the Battlefield', the infantry or foot(e) arm (if you excuse the irony) generally constitutes the main collection with artillery and cavalry in support. For this period; however, the cavalry or horse play a much more significant part in battle presence, numbers and cost for a miniature army. It is to the cavalry, therefore, that we have looked to in order to establish both our troop scale and model scales.

Model Scale

The GWG has had a long standing preference for 28mm figures (we'll settle of that definition) but for a time we dabbled with the idea of going smaller this time. Getting back to the cavalry question, the principle tactical unit for this period was the squadron and there were lots of them. It was also common practice for squadrons to attack in three ranks - particularly for the French whose cavalry tended to dominate. How then is this to be represented in 28mm or any other scale in terms of model numbers?

A Question of Cavalry

Bearing in mind that Williamite Warfare is also an adaptation of the Warhammer ECW system, the GWG have also always tended toward wargaming in 'Big Battallions' - something started in Napoleonics using the Grand Manner rule system and a habit from which we find hard to break. This generally relies on a 1:20 troop scale and makes for impressive looking units on the table-top. So then, how should the cavalry appear?

We agreed that the best representation of three ranks would be units of twelve (12) cavalry figures but if this was to represent 150 cavalry (an average squadron) then we have a troop scale of 1:12. Translate that into an infantry battalion of 550-750 soldiers and we had ourselves collecting sixty (60) figure battalions. This prompted us to begin looking at alternate figure scales.

Other Scales?

I spent an evening browsing the Internet and looking at the best 15mm had to offer and even looked at plastic figure ranges which were poorly represented in this particular period. My problem was that in comparison to the new ranges on offer from Coppelstone Casting Glory of the Sun Range, the new Front Rank releases and the classic Dixon figures, even the best 15mm miniatures paled in comparison. 'No' we decided, 'It will just have to be 28mm!' So, back to the cavalry issue.

Wargaming Doctrine

We finally hit on the idea of perverting reality for the sake of art and have struck a table-top compromise. Whilst the basic tactical unit of the cavalry squadron needs representation both in models and rules mechanisms, we have determined that a new concept should be permitted - the demi-squadron. It follows thusly ... if a squadron is represented at 1:20 troop ratio (six to seven figures) then the infantry battalions will number from 30 to 38 figures - far more manageable. BUT, what chance does one squadron of six horse have in combat against infantry, charging through a simulated hail of musketry and into pikes? Perhaps more important still, how paltry does a unit of six horsemen look before an array of three dozen pike and shot?

Demi-squadron

By providing for the notion of a demi-squadron, or two squadrons in combined attack as one unit, we hope to better represent the cavalry arm both visually and in terms of game mechanics. In three ranks of 12-14 troopers they should look the part and have a likelihood of getting the job done. Therefore, two squadrons may combine at any time in the game, testing as one unit to charge and fighting as such. Other squadrons may join the melee but they are not of the same unit for rules mechanics.

Building armies will remain a matter of collecting squadrons and nothing prevents single squadron attacks, though they might be better off chasing down fleeing troops or matching up against other singe squadrons.

Conclusion

So, in summary, after much thought it's back to 1:20 troops scale and onwards with another 28mm army thanks to the adoption of the demi-squadron as a table-top concept for cavalry action in Williamite Warfare.

Raison D'être

The purpose of this blog is to promote and share thoughts and ideas concerning late seventeenth century miniature wargaming, more specifically for the period covering three great wars: the Franco Dutch War 1672-78 (La Guerre de Hollande), the Wars of the Glorious Revolution 1688-90 and the Nine Years War 1689-98.

Key to this site is the development of Williamite Warfare, an attempt to more accurately reflect the transitional nature of this proto-linear period of warfare based upon an adaptation of the miniature wargaming rules, Warhammer English Civil War. These rules are adapted by me, Unlucky General, and play tested with my colleagues of the Goulburn Wargames Group. It is a strictly not-for-profit exercise, all ideas and original work is freely available to download, share and adapt from this site.

The first draft of Williamtie Warfare is currently under development and will constitute the first posting of the site after this statement of intent.

Williamite Warfare, whilst concentrating on the armies and campaigns fought by William of Orange, his allies and those who fought against them, merely identifies the point of orbit for this period and the theatre of operations upon which this site concentrates. It is not a political site, nor does it align with any particular religious persuasion - themes from which still resonate with many today. If this site and the accompanying rules adaptation had been The Wars of Louis XIV or cover the Empire under Leopold , its scope would have to extend to the East and the Mediterranean campaigns and Turkish styles of warfare, which it does not.

This blog is not a research focused cite. Any historical data generated through it is strictly for the purposes of translating into rules mechanisms for miniature wargaming or to illustrate the miniature armies which evolve. For research and historical focus, readers or followers are directed to such blogs as Anno Domini 1672, British Army Lineages and Wars of Louis Quatorze which I follow, have linked to this site and do not propose to compete with.

For more general wargaming subject matter, I invite you to follow my other blog Unlucky General or Project Lewes, a specific blog dedicated to the battle of Lewes in 1264.