Have army, will have wargame. Or at least, have a newly painted army, will want to get them onto the table. I do, in fact, have a campaign (of my normal narrative sort) in mind for the Hussites but decided that I really needed an experimental battle as a try out, to see how the war wagons performed on the table.
First, I needed some rules for
them of course. While the Polish war wagons of my acquaintance have been seen
before (in one of Colonel
Cranium’s adventures) I am not sure they strictly got into action, and my
current use rules (or ‘work in progress scribbles’, as they are more accurately
known) do not have any guidance for them. However, my normal trusty cribs came
out and they were added to the table easily enough.
War wagons were tough, of course.
The whole idea of them was to provide cover and a stable firing platform for
all sorts of missiles to be shot, hurled or projected at the enemy. Hussite
wagons even had baskets of stones on board, which served two purposes. Firstly,
the helped stop the enemy overturning the wagons, and secondly they provided a
handy projectile resource for the defenders. I would imagine the rate of fire
of chucking a stone at someone is rather faster than reloading a very early
handgun.
War wagons therefore score a
hefty plus four on the combat table, but can only fire to the side (strictly speaking,
they can only fire to the left hand side of the wagon, the other side had a
ramp for crew access). The Hussites had a neat formation for the wagons where
they parked side by side, the body of one wagon covering the traces of the
next. The horses were usually removed to within the laager before the shooting
started. Within the rules (indeed, within all the rules that I have seen) this
is abstracted away in the base. Who am I to argue with that?
Detailed historical research (I
read the Osprey and another book)
suggested a Later Hungarian army for the opposition, and so my trusty copy of
DBA was tracked down and yielded up its goodies in the form of the two armies.
Translated from the jargon, I got five war wagons, four Hussite foot with nasty
peasant style polearms, one gun, one base of mounted crossbowmen and one base
of noble knights. For the Hungarians, there were three knights, three light
horse, two archers, one crossbow and one spear base and two crossbow
skirmishers.
The classic Hussite tactics were
to take a position on the top of a hill and await the lunatic aristocracy and
their charge. Usually, at least early in the wars, the said lunatics obliged.
Therefore, as a one off battle, I set the Hussites on a hill and deployed the
Hungarians such that the knights would have a clear run at the upstart peasants
who dare defy their social superiors. Not only that but they are heretics as
well.
I doubt if I need to say it, but the Hungarians are
nearer the camera. Most of the figures are Irregular, although I think one base
(the Hungarian pike) is Baccus. I do actually have a fair few more war wagons
than the five deployed here. The gun is probably anachronistic. Hussite guns
seem to have been on trestles or mounted on wagons. I have a cunning plan for
that.
For the Hussites, the battle proceeded as planned. The
Hungarian knights, anxious to teach the heretic peasants a lesson, advanced
rapidly and stalled at the foot of the slope occupied by the war wagons.
The war wagons can certainly lay down some significant
firepower, but not enough to really damage the knights, although sufficient to
prevent them from charging home. The charges, when they did come, were more
piecemeal that the Hungarians would have liked.
Under the tongue lashing of the general, the two
rightmost knights have charged home. The left of these has pushed back the
facing peasants, while the rightmost has recoiled the facing war wagon. As wagons
cannot recoil, it has been lost and a gap has been opened in the Hussite lines.
The gap did not last long. The Hussite reserve knights
countercharged the victorious Hungarians and drove them back down the hill, while
the Hussite foot ensured that the other base in contact also recoiled back down
the slope. Heavy fire from the other war wagons ensured that the third
assaulting knights never got into close combat.
Meanwhile, the Hungarians, perhaps detecting that
resistance was stronger than at first thought, started to move their wings
forward. The light cavalry on the left are skirmishing ineffectively with the
rightmost Hussite wagon and the mounted crossbowmen. This was the first outing
for the revised skirmishing rules, and the as wagon kept stopping the light
horse from carrying out their orders. It seemed to work.
The end came when the Hussites, having rallied their
knights and seen off two bases of the Hungarian’s ordered a general advance by
the infantry. This destroyed the supporting Hungarian infantry, who can be seen
fleeing in the centre of the field. Meanwhile, on the Hungarian left, the
mounted crossbowmen and war wagons have caused significant damage to the
skirmishers. You might also note that, after a number of close shaves, the
Hungarian commander has also become a casualty, although initially Hungarian
morale was not affected by that. At this point, however, Hungarian morale did
collapse, although most of the remaining troops should be able to get away.
I have to say that I was quite pleased with the dynamic
of this battle. The Hussite tactics of absorbing the initial charge on the
wagons and then counter attacking worked. By the same token, of course,
Hungarian tactics were as bad as they were historically. As a sudden war wagon bolt
on to the rules I was pleased that not too much had been messed up. There are
still a few issues, such as interpenetration and the declaring of charges while
friendly troops are in the way (the Hussite cavalry had to dodge around a
billman base).
A good time was had by all, apart from the
aristorcratic Hungarians, and now I need to think of a campaign.
Excellent post.
ReplyDelete'Detailed research - osprey AND another book...'
made me titter.
You know I have noticed an improvement with ospreys in recent years, at least in terms of the authors' questioning, and re-interpretation, as opposed to trotting out the accepted secondary source material - perhaps more associated with the 1980s.
Now, conventional wisdom would suggest that this means a socio-political re-writing of military history, that of course places the British Empire in a poor light - not so with more recent writing, which still focuses on the military aspects, perhaps explaining some motivations of key players, but staying true to the osprey ethos.
Perhaps there is hope for us yet...
Yes, I think Ospreys have much improved over the last two decades or so. I suspect the authors have become more historical specialists and the publication of an Osprey is no longer professional suicide; a fair few are actually referred to in 'proper' historiography.
DeleteIs there hope? Well, someone might realise one day that as history is written by the winners, it might be a good idea to figure out why and how they won....