Something New from Something Old

For over a year I have been sitting on a stagnant pile of gorgeously sculpted lead for my United Provinces army. I have come to realise that this is unlikely to alter in the foreseeable future - perhaps even my lifetime - unless something is done.

The limitation is uniform and colour information. This has largely been the case due to a vacuum of research and certainty surrounding uniforms and colours for the Dutch Wars of the 1670s - less so for the French but drastically so for the Dutch. I also realize there's not a lot I can do about that.

I have previously flagged a willingness to co-fund a grant but have not pushed it past this Blog as yet. I have dreamt of learning Dutch, living in the Netherlands for a year and doing it myself but it's not possible - not in this life. So until the void is at least partly filled - what to do?

My options are to speculate that the earliest reference to regimental uniforms (those of 1688 as published by Sapherson) might be consistent with the uniforms of the same regiments 14 years earlier. I say 14 years because I want to concentrate on the battle of Seneffe in 1674 - that's the army I want to recreate. But the evidence is simply against me and I know it.

Even within the much reduced time frame covered by Sapherson's work for William's army in the Nine Years War, individual regiments change their uniform colours with alarming regularity. The chances of a previous period being more consistent seems unlikely in the extreme and to suggest it could also stretch over a 14 year period is not just improbable, it's fanciful.

So I have come to a curious option and one inspired by the following image.



Actually, it didn't have to be this image in particular. I'm talking about the time honoured portrayal of warfare in this period by the artists' engraving. Replacing the woodcut, the artist's engraving recorded visual impressions of the characters and events of the age for a rapidly increasing number of increasingly literate people thanks to the exponential proliferation of the printing press. Unlike the periods which followed, this was predominately in our century of interest a form without colour and it is this lack of colour which has caught my imagination.

If I can't discern the uniform colours of my army, then why not dispense with colour entirely? I've always sought to push the boundaries of conventional wargaming and try something new. This may be it.

Here I'd like to acknowledge the work of a fellow Blogger and one of the many I follow: Carmen's Fun Painty Time. Some time ago he created a vignette for a 1930's American gangster mob, all in 'black & white' to capture a feel for the period. As he paid homage to the age of B&W film, might I not think about wargaming in the age of the 17th century engraving?

In a world without colour; light, shade and form become more evident. The eye will be drawn to the sculpting and the modelling without distraction from how well or not I have painted them. Have you ever thought how pure and statuesque some of the superior figures available today look at the undercoated stage - when undercoated white that is?

When asked, "What's all this wargaming about?", have many of us not likened wargaming to a more dynamic chess-like game but with toy soldiers? Well, a table-top without colour gets closer still. More of the game and less of the craft or artistic side of the hobby, yet perhaps not entirely.

Whilst the game comes more to the fore in this option (as I see it) I'm not talking about simply spray-painted figures moved across a bed-sheet. I'm talking about bringing those well known sketches to the third dimension. Unlike B&W photography, where all colour is represented by subtle shades, the engravings of this time are predominately detailed white sketches with an emphasis on shade or more precisely, shadow. I envisage at this time white-sprayed undercoated figures, perhaps inked or 'washed' and a dusting or dry brushed finish. I'd want the finish figures to be like marbled masses; subtle, delicate and worth holding up to the eye.

Perhaps subtler shades of coloured hues for the priming or undercoating for different nationalities. Imagine a light or mid-grey blue for the French, more layered dry-brushing with white which should still render the units essentially white to reflect the artists sketch but with a consistent permeation of subtle colour in the creases and folds, telling our eyes and brain that this unit differs from that of it's opponent. Alternatively, heavier shading will allow for one side to be identified from another but only where there is a need or desire to tell the difference between two distinct sides. Otherwise, coloured undercoats might be a faded brown/orange for the United Provinces, a russet for the British, a dark grey/blue for the Prussians and so on. 

The landscape will be sculpted foam, contoured and sanded with roads and rivulets properly represented in actual depth but all coated white with the depths further indicated with shades of grey. In such a landscape the buildings and the natural features of trees, shrubs and hedgerows might well be best modelled from card stock and foam-core, simplified and made to a series of generic templates in imitation of the artists style for repetition.

It's not a simple fix and much careful consideration needs to be entered into before proceeding. Regardless of the care and application I may make, it would nevertheless result in a significantly faster build time for my first wargaming project in this period. Just think, purchasing the figures might seriously be half the time it takes to get my new armies on the table and playing games.

If in time my knowledge gap is filled with new research and publication: if someone out there colours my world, I will revisit this period in technicolour but for now I am finding this idea almost irresistible.

What do you think?

RESEARCH PRIZE

I've been thinking about this for quite some time and wanted to run the idea across you, the Williamite Warfare followers.

Those wargamers in this period who are interested in the Nine Years War are comparatively well catered for in terms of uniform guides and researched publications. Anyone wishing to wargame the battle of the Boyne for instance is particularly well provided for, compared to my preferred campaigns of the Franco-Dutch Wars from 1672. One particularly good work is C.A. Sapherson's Dutch Army of William III which brings me to my question and suggestion. 

Is anyone interested in jointly funding a research prize for uniforms and armies of the Dutch Wars from 1672? Has anyone had experience with funding research in the past? It seems to me that there is the strangest gap between figure ranges being released for this period and no corresponding guides either in development or being released. Osprey Publishing, that mainstay of uniform references is noticeably mute in this period.

Living as I do in the southern hemisphere and otherwise committed to my career and family, I am unable to take the year off and take up residence in Europe to do this myself. My serious lack of French or Dutch also has me at a distinct disadvantage.

I am personally prepared to contribute GBP1,000.00 toward any sponsorship for the archives of the Netherlands to be 'mined' and an equivalent work to Sapherson's to be developed. My hope is that with enough contributors, a project could be undertaken to produce an exhaustive reference from the as yet publicly available records in France and the Netherlands.

Does anyone have any ideas about how we might take such an initiative forward?

FEEDBACK WANTED

It has been a very long time since my last posting on this, one of my four blogs. I believe it will remain in a state of semi-slumber for some time due to my personal circumstances. I am now seven months into a two year posting to the Kingdom of Tonga - a country of very poor internet capability. My ability to research is severely restricted as is my development of any miniature army for this period. I have collected half of the troops I intend to wargame with in a grand manner - already several hundred. I hope to begin painting them before much longer but for the want of any certainty of uniforms for my chosen period (1674).

It's also been a while since even visiting this blog for me and I notice that I have gradually gathered more followers. This is both gratifying and surprising given that I believed this to be a very niche period - which brings me to my feedback query.

Has anyone used my rules variations or army lists yet? If so, I'd really like to know what you think and if you'd like to share, please comment here and I will post them. I have not myself. Thanks in advance to anyone who does so. Please stay tuned for my next post which is a research appeal.

Happy wargaming.

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.

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.

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.

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.