Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Can you beat the English Army?

  • 21-04-2013 2:39pm
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 429 ✭✭


    The-English-Army-Marching-With-Sir-Henry-Sidney-1529-86-In-1566.jpg

    This is Henry Sidney's army setting off in 1578 to teach the Irish chieftains a lesson. As you can see they are well equipped with arquebusiers, demi-lancers and pike-men. Although several armies like these were met and defeated by F.McH O'Byrne, Shane O'Neill, Red Hugh o'Donnell and later Hugh O'Neill, in general well organised and financed English armies usually had the upper hand in these contests.

    Just to illustrate what we are talking about, this is a very good film reconstruction of 16th century Spanish and Dutch armies in battle. Dutch dragoons attack a Spanish pike square; then Dutch infantry close on the Spanish pike-men and while the pike men square up to each other looking for angles to attack their opponents some heroes get a rush of blood to the head and charge under the pike's to hack at the enemy with knives and swords in hand-to-hand combat.

    http://youtu.be/26C758K4Fc0

    So the question here is, what can you bring to the table in order to defeat this army? What strategy or weapon (not modern obviously, but you can use your modern knowledge to improve or upgrade weapons of the time) do you think would have tipped the balance back in favour of Irish victory?


Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 9,900 ✭✭✭InTheTrees


    A lot of it had to do with having enough cash to be able to finance a full time army, which meant you could really train and perfect tactics.

    And then when they went up against a hastily assembled defensive army they're obviously going to have the upper hand.

    I'm only guessing though.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,028 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    For a start, don't get drawn into open combat. Hit them with guerrilla tactics, especially hit their supply routes. They say an army marches on it's stomach and if that's empty... Attack at night, give them little chance to live off the land, poison wells, destroy bridges, that sort of thing. Given gunpowder was around and you have modern ideas in your head, IED's along their route would help. Break their will to march and fight. Given that they were much more superstitious and religious, use that too. Make them think heavy duty black magic is being brought to bear on them. Give them no rest, physically or mentally.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    The same way Boudica was defeated by the Romans and the English won at Agincourt. Use the enemy's numbers and the terrain against them.

    Funnel their army so their front line is small and crushed together and hit them with relentless arrows or javelins.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 158 ✭✭sungear


    Wibbs wrote: »
    For a start, don't get drawn into open combat. Hit them with guerrilla tactics, especially hit their supply routes. They say an army marches on it's stomach and if that's empty... Attack at night, give them little chance to live off the land, poison wells, destroy bridges, that sort of thing. Given gunpowder was around and you have modern ideas in your head, IED's along their route would help. Break their will to march and fight. Given that they were much more superstitious and religious, use that too. Make them think heavy duty black magic is being brought to bear on them. Give them no rest, physically or mentally.

    Thats interesting, but is it not likely there are things there that are being assumed? or that aren't being considered, like they would already have the cavalry ready in order for battle, prepared at the head of or ready to go to the flanks of an advancing army to break up ambushes or just to cause disarray among the populace to cause havoc and confusion?
    Not sure how you could set up IED's unless a person was prepared to sit in wait and given explosives weren't smokeless or instantaneous, it would give the advancing army time to move from a potential explosive.

    The religious aspect may or may not work, if they are motivated by their own beliefs strongly enough, it may encourage them or give them ammunition to spur on their own men, although it was probably likely, Id consider it more likely any defenders would be slaughtered to the last if you tried that one, maybe even their own side might be unprepared to accept that.

    Interesting, the guerrilla aspect may have worked, it seems to in most other cases where a large force is employed. A large force cant be everywhere, so if you have a significant enough force that is either everywhere or very mobile (horseback) then they may be able to disrupt an enemy long enough to break up attacks, assuming they dont get pinned down anywhere, surrounded and massacred.
    The same way Boudica was defeated by the Romans and the English won at Agincourt. Use the enemy's numbers and the terrain against them.

    Funnel their army so their front line is small and crushed together and hit them with relentless arrows or javelins.

    Id have to look up Boudiceas defeat in detail, a quick google suggests something similar to the field where the French above were defeated. Its easier to visualise Agincourt after watching a few documentaries, I think the English chose the place of battle?

    Planning, organisation, conditions and other circumstances seem to be more reason for winning, I wonder if the French had sent a large cavalry force around the wood which protected the english flank and attacked from both sides what the outcome would have been, Ive tried to look up the scale of the wood and terrain but didnt find anything.
    The English force seemed more under command and perhaps because of their limited numbers and thus options they had to stay put and wait till the French attacked, with some luck on their side that the French weren't under as combined a control.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    sungear wrote: »

    Id have to look up Boudiceas defeat in detail, a quick google suggests something similar to the field where the French above were defeated. Its easier to visualise Agincourt after watching a few documentaries, I think the English chose the place of battle?

    Planning, organisation, conditions and other circumstances seem to be more reason for winning, I wonder if the French had sent a large cavalry force around the wood which protected the english flank and attacked from both sides what the outcome would have been, Ive tried to look up the scale of the wood and terrain but didnt find anything.
    The English force seemed more under command and perhaps because of their limited numbers and thus options they had to stay put and wait till the French attacked, with some luck on their side that the French weren't under as combined a control.

    It also rained heavily, so the heavily armoured French knights got bogged down in the mud, whereas the lightly armed English and Welsh bowman didn't and could move much quicker.

    Boudica is obviously fairly sketchy, but the theory I recall was that her army was so Large they couldn't wield their heavy swords when they reached the Roman lines, couldn't break through and effectively created their own crush.meanwhile the Romans rained down javelins on them.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 158 ✭✭sungear


    It also rained heavily, so the heavily armoured French knights got bogged down in the mud, whereas the lightly armed English and Welsh bowman didn't and could move much quicker.

    Boudica is obviously fairly sketchy, but the theory I recall was that her army was so Large they couldn't wield their heavy swords when they reached the Roman lines, couldn't break through and effectively created their own crush.meanwhile the Romans rained down javelins on them.

    Thats more or less what Ive seen in documentaries/read.
    I thought the french had a sufficiently large force to attack from the rear of the English at the same time, by going around the wood, not just up the sides of the field.
    Had they sent a fifth of their force which would have been equal to the entire English force and waited for their main attack to coincide with signs of french forces on both sides of the english lines, I think Agincourt may have been remembered by the french as a victory, There is probably some reason why they didnt do this. There may have been English forces at the village to spoil any attack at the rear of their main forces and it is probable that none of the French would want to be dispatched to attack the rear of the enemy force, being French nobility, maybe it was seen as a lesser thing or they may have felt they would be left out of the main battle and deprived of honours or spoils of war?

    In the same, I think Boudica's army was only able to face the romans head on at the same numbers of the Romans due to the narrowness f the battlefield, negating the advantage of numbers and concentrating the benefits of the Romans massed formation and probably more advanced weapons.


  • Registered Users Posts: 429 ✭✭Neutronale


    Wibbs wrote: »
    For a start, don't get drawn into open combat. Hit them with guerrilla tactics, especially hit their supply routes. They say an army marches on it's stomach and if that's empty... Attack at night, give them little chance to live off the land, poison wells, destroy bridges, that sort of thing. Given gunpowder was around and you have modern ideas in your head, IED's along their route would help. Break their will to march and fight. Given that they were much more superstitious and religious, use that too. Make them think heavy duty black magic is being brought to bear on them. Give them no rest, physically or mentally.

    Bingo, that's exactly what I was thinking, I reckon that's a product of our current realities rather than something that was entirely possible at that time. Gun powder was always in short supply; at the Curlew Pass the English ran out of gun powder and Red Hugh's army slaughtered them (although he called his army off them and let many of them go).

    I was thinking of the type of booby trap that the Viet Cong used to leave for the Yanks, Punji-sticks and such.

    I agree ambush and harrying tactics are a must. At the end of the Nine Year War the remaining Irish Lords holed up in their Tower Houses and small castles and waited for the English Army, a late 16th century army with cannon to arrive...it was a lose-lose tactic for the Irish.


  • Registered Users Posts: 429 ✭✭Neutronale


    The same way Boudica was defeated by the Romans and the English won at Agincourt. Use the enemy's numbers and the terrain against them.

    Funnel their army so their front line is small and crushed together and hit them with relentless arrows or javelins.

    This was what Hugh O'Neill did at the Moyry Pass, there were only two viable entry points into Ulster. Repeated English attacks at the Moyry Pass failed because of the prepared defences of O'Neill.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,594 Mod ✭✭✭✭riffmongous


    Glenmalure is another example of how to defeat an army like that, of course when you actually go to Glenmalure and see the terrain you would wonder what sort of general would take his troops there.

    A well equipped army of Ulster Scots organised like in the picture (minus the demilancers I think) would be defeated by an Irish army similarly organised in one of the few very rare Irish pitched battle victories 60 years later at Benburb.


  • Registered Users Posts: 429 ✭✭Neutronale


    Glenmalure is another example of how to defeat an army like that, of course when you actually go to Glenmalure and see the terrain you would wonder what sort of general would take his troops there.

    A well equipped army of Ulster Scots organised like in the picture (minus the demilancers I think) would be defeated by an Irish army similarly organised in one of the few very rare Irish pitched battle victories 60 years later at Benburb.

    I think demi-lancers were a thing of the past by 1641. Dragoons, muskets and pistols had replaced lances.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,594 Mod ✭✭✭✭riffmongous


    Neutronale wrote: »
    I think demi-lancers were a thing of the past by 1641. Dragoons, muskets and pistols had replaced lances.

    I think they might have been still used by the Scots though, let me see if I can dig up a reference


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,324 ✭✭✭Cork boy 55


    What film is the youtube clip in the OP from?
    Looks good.


  • Registered Users Posts: 429 ✭✭Neutronale


    I think they might have been still used by the Scots though, let me see if I can dig up a reference

    That would certainly be interesting.

    AFAIK the Polish had some late success with lancers and they were readopted in many armies as huzzars.

    Hence you have Huzzar and lancer units in service during the 19th century up to WW1.


  • Registered Users Posts: 429 ✭✭Neutronale


    What film is the youtube clip in the OP from?
    Looks good.

    Yes its a very good reenactment of that type of battle, I image there was a lot of research. Reenactors today usually take the term push-of-pike to mean they all crowd in together and shove each other around but this is closer to the reality.

    Incidentally just read the account of the battle of Benburb and it gave a graphic indication as to why it was an Irish victory.
    The battle commenced with Monro’s artillery firing on the Irish position, but without causing many casualties. Monro's cavalry then charged the Irish infantry, but were unable to break the Confederates' pike and musket formation. When this attack had failed, O’Neill ordered his infantry to advance, pushing the British back into a loop of the river by the push of the pike. It was noted that the Irish pikes had longer shafts and narrower heads than those of their opponents, meaning that they outreached them and were "better to pierce".


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,594 Mod ✭✭✭✭riffmongous


    Imo though the reason there was an Irish victory at Benburb was less to do with equipment and more to do with the fact that this was a well commanded and experienced army. Compared to all the numerous Irish defeats during the confederate wars, the biggest difference to me is that you had a competent soldier in charge for once.


  • Registered Users Posts: 429 ✭✭Neutronale


    Imo though the reason there was an Irish victory at Benburb was less to do with equipment and more to do with the fact that this was a well commanded and experienced army. Compared to all the numerous Irish defeats during the confederate wars, the biggest difference to me is that you had a competent soldier in charge for once.

    Terrain and the fact that the English army was fatigued would be two significant factors but I'd imagine the longer better piercing Irish pikes made an even greater difference. The Pike formations were the main body of an army in those days.

    On the downside, the Irish were unable to make any gains on the back of the victory.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,594 Mod ✭✭✭✭riffmongous


    Neutronale wrote: »
    Terrain and the fact that the English army was fatigued would be two significant factors but I'd imagine the longer better piercing Irish pikes made an even greater difference. The Pike formations were the main body of an army in those days.

    On the downside, the Irish were unable to make any gains on the back of the victory.

    Oh I am sure all that helped, but if you analyse every major battle the Confederates fought, the two major defeats which effectively crippled the rebellion were mainly due to really incompetent troop deployment, if an O'Neill had been in charge maybe things would have turned out differently in those cases.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dungans_Hill: Preston deploys his troops in a big wheat field and his cavalry in a lane.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Knocknanauss: Taafe deploys his men separately on different sides of a hill.

    Really incompetent stuff. If you read detailed accounts of the battles and compare them to an account of Benburb, only Benburb could be considered a battle as you would expect, the rest were just really one-sided.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,594 Mod ✭✭✭✭riffmongous


    Neutronale wrote: »
    That would certainly be interesting.

    AFAIK the Polish had some late success with lancers and they were readopted in many armies as huzzars.

    Hence you have Huzzar and lancer units in service during the 19th century up to WW1.

    I can't find that reference, it's in another Osprey book it seems, one that I don't have access too.

    Lancer troops found a lot of success in the Napoleonic wars, most armies had units of them I think, in the east they were called Uhlans


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,324 ✭✭✭Cork boy 55


    Neutronale wrote: »
    Yes its a very good reenactment of that type of battle, I image there was a lot of research. Reenactors today usually take the term push-of-pike to mean they all crowd in together and shove each other around but this is closer to the reality.

    It is from the film Alatriste(says in description)
    based on the main character of a series of novels written by Arturo Pérez-Reverte, The Adventures of Captain Alatriste
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alatriste

    The title is wrong It is a portrayal of the French against Spanish
    (Not Dutch against Spanish.)
    at the battle of Rocroi in 1643 in France during the thirty year war
    no Dutch involved in this battle according to wiki anyway
    There are battle scenes involving Dutch rebels earlier in film.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Rocroi

    The full movie is on youtube you have to Speak Spanish
    no subtitles.
    here's the full battle scene
    A film representation that shows a Spanish Tercio
    The tercio was an infantry formation made up of pikemen, swordsmen and arquebusiers or musketeers in a mutually supportive formation, that in theory was up to 3,000 soldiers, although it was usually less than half this size. It was also sometimes referred to as the Spanish Square in other countries and the formation was also much used by other powers, especially the Imperial Army of the Holy Roman Empire. The formation dominated European battlefields in the sixteenth century and the first half of the seventeenth century and is seen by historians as a major development of Early Modern combined arms warfare
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tercio
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMEnBHef96c


Advertisement