Thursday game this week at Julian's - Chris, John and I joined our host as we pitted my Covenanters (finally representing...well...Covenanters!) against Julian's TYW Swedes, representing Montrose's Royalists. The scenario chosen by Julian was the battle of Aberdeen, 13 September 1644.
The Battle of Aberdeen
1.1 CONTEXT
The Covenanter government of Scotland had entered into
alliance with the English
parliament and had entered the war in England in early 1644,
the Scottish army having a
significant impact in the campaign for the north of England. In
response, following the
royalists’ dramatic defeat at Marston Moor (Yorkshire, July
1644), the King appointed the
Marquis of Montrose as his military commander in Scotland.
On 28th August 1644
Montrose raised the royal standard and with little more than
2000 troops fought a campaign
in which he had won a series of dramatic successes in the
Highlands against the Covenanter
forces.
Montrose began a campaign intended to present such a threat
to the Covenanter
government that they would have to recall Leven’s army from
England and thus swing the
balance of the war there back in the royalist favour. In
Scotland he might even, in the long
run, manage to topple the government and install a regime
favourable to the king.
Montrose’s first objective was to establish a secure
territorial base upon which he could
sustain a long campaign. Though outnumbered, his forces
achieved their first victory at
Tippermuir. This forced the Scottish government to recall some, but
not the bulk, of the army from
England, and other troops from Ireland.
From Tippermuir the royalists marched east towards Dundee.
There they were rebuffed and
so pressed on northwards towards the government controlled city of
Aberdeen.
1.2 ACTION
Various local forces had been called to Aberdeen in early
September to counter the threat
from Montrose. Though not all turned out, the government
army was substantially stronger
than the royalists. They held the Bridge of Dee, forcing
Montrose on the 11th September to
ford the river near the Mills of Drum. First, he called
the government forces to surrender
but they would not. Instead, they deployed south west of the
city, in a strong location
adjacent to Justice Mills. The troops deployed astride the
main road (the Hard Gate)
approaching from the south west along the top of a steep
scarp overlooking the point at
which the main road crossed the How Burn or Justice Mills
Burn.
The government deployment is not clear from the documentary
sources but Raid
suggests Balfour deployed the bulk of his cavalry on the
left flank where the scarp was far
less steep, with the remainder on the right flank, adjacent
to Justice Mills, with musketeers
holding the Justice Mills itself. They also placed several
light artillery pieces in front of
the infantry and held several buildings and walled yards on
the sloping ground. The royalist deployed to the west of the burn with infantry
in the centre and cavalry on the wings, each
supported by about 100 musketeers. A few light artillery
pieces were placed to the fore.
After an artillery exchange the government cavalry made
ineffective, poorly coordinated
attacks on either flank. An outflanking infantry move by the
covenanters, via a sunken lane,
on the royalist left was effectively countered. The well
drilled royalist infantry used good
tactics to defeat the right wing covenanter cavalry attack.
In the centre the royalist infantry
attack now cleared the buildings held against them and after
a hard fight for some time,
they followed up the firefight with a charge that in hand to
hand fighting soon broke the
inexperienced Covenanter infantry in the centre. The
Covenanter reserve was also then
broken. In all the action had lasted less than two hours .
While the covenanter cavalry escaped, in the rout a
significant number from the broken
infantry regiments were killed. There was then extensive
plundering and far worse
atrocities by the royalist troops in the town itself.
But the royalist forces soon had to retreat north westward
towards the Highlands because
the Marquis of Argyll with substantial forces was advancing
to counter the royalist threat.
1.3 TROOPS
Numbers:
The royalist army under Montrose comprised mainly Irish
troops for following Tippermuir
many of the Highland forces had dispersed. But they were
more experienced and under a
very capable commander. The Covenanters under Lord Balfour,
who had limited
experience, combined two regiments of regular troops with a
substantial number of local
levies, the latter lacking battle experience.
Royalist: 1500 foot;
70 horse; several light artillery
pieces
Covenanter: 2000 foot and about 500 horse; several light
artillery pieces
Losses:
There is limited evidence of the losses both on the
battlefield and in the town but Marren
suggests that the losses on the covenanter side tend to be
over emphasised while the royalist
losses are under played
Wow, great looking battle! I think terrain does have an impact on tactics - and barring freaky dice / card draws then translates into similar results. My own battle of Lansdowne a few weeks ago proved remarkably similar to the real thing - even down to the casualties when I did an abstracted calculation of losses.
ReplyDeleteThanks JBM.... It was really quite odd reading the account of the actual battle today...it sounded so similar to ours! Interesting observation about the effect of terrain too.
DeleteSuperb looking game
ReplyDeleteThank you Neil
DeleteHi Kieth,
ReplyDeleteA huge Battle and most enjoyable game. Sometimes loosing a Battle can be as good as winning as the ebb and flow is so interesting and entertaining- and there is always 'next time'. Regards. KEV.
Thanks Kev...I don't usually enjoy losing but with these card driven rules,for some reason I feel a lot less responsibilty for the outcome!
DeleteAh, what a great looking game sir!!
ReplyDeleteThank you Michal...I think we all had fun!
DeleteYes a very enjoyable game
ReplyDeleteCHRIS! You finally managed to make it onto my blog...welcome along mate!
DeleteEnjoyed, thanks. A lovely presentation. When I saw the first photo, I thought ‘that’s a small game for your group’ :-)
ReplyDeleteThanks Norm. Julian's games are a sub set of our main group.....normally only four to six players and on a six by four table...that doesn't always stop him cramming as many troops as possible into his games, but this one was based on a real scenario so had set limits!
DeleteMarvelous looking game, Keith. Your cavalry really let you down in this battle. Good to see Renegade figures among the troops out for battle. Interesting basing for the dragoons. How long did the game take to fight to completion?
ReplyDeleteThank you Jon. I was surprised how easily my cavalry could have won...I expected a pike block to have loads of advantages against cavalry (like a Napoleonic square) but a bit of luck with cards and I would have broken them...oh well, not to be this time. The game took approximately two and a half hours to play through.
DeleteBy the way, I agree with you re the dragoons - not sure where Julian got that idea from but I think they look quite good as a mixture of foot and mounted on the same base....!
DeleteThanks for the inspiring battle report--it's always heartening to see a full blown pike and shot battle game on a scale that is more usually seen in something like Napoleonics--and which is every bit as much a sight to behold and experience as a game.
ReplyDeleteYou are most welcome Ed! Having collected ECW on and off for twenty years (and who knows, I might return there again one day!) it's nice to get these figures into action. By our standards, this was quite a small game of seven or eight infantry per side...more than half my collection missed out and remained in their boxes!
DeleteVery inspiring ECW gaming, Keith! Quite mesmerizing looking at all the images. Great looking troops and an interesting scenario with a river down the center of the battlefield.
ReplyDeleteThanks Dean...look forward to seeing your own recently painted ECW making their first foray into the fray sometime soon! In reality, the river was just a small stream, nothing lie as substantial as it appears here.
DeleteThat's a lovely looking game Keith and great to read the AAR. The images were a joy to behold and tempts me to give the rules another go, once the weather cools down a bit!
ReplyDeleteCheers Steve - you should give the rules a try, they are the best we have found so far for ECW (decent rules has been one of our challenges over the years with this era) - they give a quick fun game with little to dispute, as they use a square grid a la To the Strongest. You would recognise the weather here today - blustery wind and rain with grey skies, although not that cold at around fifteen degrees at eight am. I think I will get a fair bit of painting done this weekend!
ReplyDeleteA great collection of figures Keith. Nice to see some Renegade figures enjoying an outing.
ReplyDeleteThanks Lawrence - my collection is quite a broad church - started off with Front Rank (as they were produced locally under license) then added some Renegade when they had a Christmas special, a few Bicorn to round up the numbers in the mainly Renegade units, then I inherited a unit or two of unpainted Foundry figures from my mate Chris, and lastly a couple of regiments of mixed (mainly Foundry) bits and pieces I bought off Andrew.... AND THEN, I got some plastic Warlord to see what they were like - and the answer was, very nice!
DeleteAwesome battle report Keith, nothing better than a river crossing the battlefield, so many splendid figures here...Epic and superb!
ReplyDeleteThank you Phil, there are certainly a good mix of different manufacturers figures on display
DeleteThat’s a great looking game, Keith. I assume the result is a compliment to rule system and well balanced scenario.
ReplyDeleteThat is a nice way of putting it Dmitry....I would have been happy with a less historical outcome! Perhaps the result indicates that John and I are as incompetent in command as the Covenanter generals in 1644 were?!
DeleteOk. I know it’s just me. But While looking at the battlefield pic I’m TOTALLY distracted by the snack bowls. What’s in the snack bowls? If I enlarge the pics can I see? 😀😀
ReplyDeleteIm just being silly. Sounds like a great time for y’all. I had to look very hard for the grid marks.
Hi Stew...the bowls contained Kettle Fried Chips (crisps for or British readers), one BBQ flavour , the other Ready Salted from memory. Next time, I will try to remember to take some pictures! As to the grid markings, yes, they are very subtle...just a smal + at each corner. It's some commercially produced thing Julian bought after thirty years of gaming on a home made cloth.
DeleteSplendid looking game,if unfortunate albeit historically correct result! My Covenanters still haven't been Covenanters yet,I guess I'll have to paint that Montrose army I've got,tartan no!
DeleteBest Iain
Indeed Iain...maybe they should continue masquerading as someone else, they seem to have more success! It was a good game and like many table top encounters, a slightly different run of luck could have changed everything !
DeleteFabulous game! After reading your message on my blog- I raced over to have a look. Lovely figures! I enjoyed your take on the tactics that you chose. I'll have to give it a go. Besides that, your units look awesome....makes me wonder if I got my basing right!
ReplyDelete