The Loose Association of Wargamers

The 'Victory without Quarter' rules ask you to designate all Horse as Gallopers (Swedish style- ie charge home) or Trotters (Dutch style- eg fire pistols).
I think this fair enough. Most Royalist Horse should de labelled "Gallopers" for instance.

But how about the Covenanter cavalry? It was seen as historically a bit ordinary - so Trotters? But surely the lance-armed regiments must have been meant to charge home? What else do you do with a lance? So, also 'Gallopers" albeit a bit more reluctant to charge?


donald

As I understand it - and I'm open to correction on this - most Scottish horse consisted of a front rank of lancers and a rear rank armed with pistols.
So maybe the lancers were only too happy to charge home, just to get away from those "carefree" pistoleers behind them? I also gather that it was more the quality of the horseflesh than the standard of recruits or their training, that made the Covenanter cavalry so woeful.

Having a lance doesn't necessary mean it's intended for use in a charge. Perhaps it's intended for us in the pursuit of stuff what is running away or otherwise scattered, or for skirmishing.

And, off you go......

Iain

Like a pike?

Don't tell them.....

Count Belisarius wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 2:58 pm Like a pike?

Yes, but a skirmishing pike.

Personally I would field as Gallopers if no other choice. Pikepersons Lament has the same distinction of horse units, which I find a bit simplistic for the period if you're covering more Eastern types too.

To me, it almost seems a two-tier way of grading cavalry. EG Rupert's cavaliers - Gallopers- tended to smack the early Parliamentarian Horse )-trotters- around. and when Cromwell got his act together, the Ironsides - gallopers- dominated.

donald

Which stands to reason when you think about it really - shooting pistols at people heading towards you at a rate of knots and with murder/mayhem in mind, is really only going to end one way.