In all of this it is worth remembering that the pitched battles of the ECW were short fast bloody affairs, (unlike later centuries and the TYW). Naseby, Marston Moor, Edgehill were all done in 3 hours each, even the slogging match of first Newbury was all done in less than a day. So the opportunities and need for heavy artillery batteries were just not a part of ECW thinking, they were mainly used for sieges. Artillery would have had a psychological impact, and was used to try and soften up the enemy, but the ECW commanders spent far more time, money and resources raising regiments of Horse and foote, not massive artillery trains.
As regarding Pike and shotte, the movements and actions of the pike and the shotte would often be all together, e.g. advance, en mass, retreat, en masse. The times when each weapon was deployed in it's own way would have often bee obvious. E.G. Muskets firing into advancing enemy or vis versa, then taking shelter under the pike to avoid cavalry charges. But the muskets wouldn't rush of and perform one action on the other side of the field, un-prodtected by the pike, or visa versa. (except where we have stated when commanded shotte etc. was used, on special occasions).
"Who died and made you xxxxxxx king of the zombies?"
Well, they are no English battles. (Marston moor and others named before....) So there are just two possibilities:
1. The English in ECW had not been able to use light field guns like the men on the continent did for a century before. 2. The older British historians tradition is wrong and a man like Bull (or the continental authors named) are right.
I may be naive, but I think the 17th century ancestors are not so stupid as some old fashioned historians believe(d). Have you read Bulls book? If not, please do. Check his (or the other modern authors) sources, arguments, conclusions and if you stay with Young, well. But nobody here claimed mistakes in Bull's book. Traditions die hard.
If modern science is so bad I'm sure you would only buy Airfix Romans with the traditional Lindenschmidt leather reconstruction armour that was still "correct" in the 70's, not the "bad" modern WG ones with Lorica Segmentata. The same sources but today a totally different interpretation. Few new findings, but in a few decades a totally revolution.
I still have a Gibbon but ....
Drums in battle, please read the French drum uses in Ordonnance d'Exercice 1754 and Manuel d'Infanterie de Bardin, 1813. A lot of signals for daily routines, parades, camp, march. Very useful for commands in a calm setting. And in battle? The drummers in a group. The pas de charge in different tempi but no signals how to do this or that. Playing rythm to get the men forward. One of the most important duties for a part of the drummers in battle named in the manuel: To get reserve ammunition from the carts. Well, everything might have changed in 150 years. So let's assume that drums are able to transmit precise orders among an ECW black powder battlefield. That that fool Napoleon forgot that this is possible, well, he lost.
The ECW and TYW were very different. In TYW rank and file soldiers were professionals, bigger armies of men that would commit to long battles and campaigns. I ECW men were not professionals and often felt they had something better to do, so desertion, and going home to get in the harvest were common. often units wouldn't fight outside of their own county. As a result it was a very different sort of war. There were not the large artillery trains, or masses of skilled gunners. So to reduce the impact of artillery in an ECW ruleset, compared to Napoleonic, or ACW is sensible.
@Invisible. Name one major pitched battle in ECW (not TYW) were cannon secured the outcome.
Many of us love the ECW period because it was English (British) amatures fighting, the common man in a war of principle.
"Who died and made you xxxxxxx king of the zombies?"
I'm more than willing to share what contemporary c17th sources state, and to enter into a discussion or exchange of ideas based upon evidence FROM THE ENGLISH CIVIL WARS. Over the past 20 years I've been able to collect facsimilie copies of many original documents and I'm aware that others don't necessarily have access to these. I'm more than happy to look things up and open up the findings to discussion.
However I feel that one party is simply shouting down others WITHOUT ACTUALLY READING WHAT THEY SAY and is totally unwilling to concede any points or accept any other ideas. If I want that I can talk to my wife.
Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?
Hi Mikeland, an example? Marston Moor was very much influenced by the guns. That Slingsby claimed that the initial bombardment caused no casualties is taken as face value by Young but S. was not present. Scoutmaster Watson described the guns as being in action between :" two and five o'clock".
The minimum possible is 50 Roundhead guns for two hours, we know only the names of Gentleman victims but for every of them we can assume some Privates.
The Royalist guns on Rye Hill had some influence in getting the Allied army to attack. Lumsden tells us that the first objective of the Scots was to get rid of the guns that fired into the Allieds right flank.
I wrote Young is to blame, that may be a little hard. He believed what everybody "knew". So he did not bother to look for sources that claim that English field artillery was not so impotent as was generally believed from older historians.
That notable soldiers are effected by such wrong popular "knowldedge" is shown by John Peddie, (OBE, MC, WW II service, later CO of Uganda Rifles) In 1987 he wrote Invasion, The Roman conquest of Britain. And states that the 1st century Roman army had 1 Onager for each Cohort. A weapon first mentioned more than a hundred years later.
I must confess some unfair advantage, I get the actual books for free. And I get my money (Not from the publishers)for reading them and writing reviews (often very critical) beside my own professional researches. So I have access and time to read the modern studies. Bull, Gilmour and many more did a lot to change the knowledge about 17th centuries field guns in the last 15 years.
(Oh, drums, the 1743 Prussian reglement on page 107 claims what drummer do in case of horse attack. Form squares! Urgent need for fast transfer of orders . What is the drummers only task given? Run and take cover in the square, don't do any signals)
Lets just assume 20 Parliament guns at the opening of Marston moor (not the 50 they had availabe) Assume Youngs slow rate of 3 minutes / round. And 10 rounds before you have to pause to cool the barrels (only valid with cradles and heavier guns, bagged powder can be loaded in hotter barrels)
That's for the first 30 minutes 200 slugs of iron, hurled in the direction of massed crowds of men in deep order in good sight. From Walker and others we know that the Allied Artillery fired for two or more hours. Let the barrels cool down a full 30 minutes before you start a new half hour ten shot series. So we have a minimum of 2 x 200 = 400 roundshots flying in the direction of a large crowd of men and horses. The balls bouncing along for a long distance after the first ground contact. Smashing bones, cutting heads...
Even without aiming it would take a lot of luck not to hurt many men and horses if you fire 200 balls that way. I'm astonished that British insist that their ancestors are unable to hit if they try.
Was there something wrong with the English in ECW To much strong beer I hope, not something that could be inherited