The Battle of Knocknanuss (or Knocknanauss) was fought in 1647 between the Irish Confederates and a Parliamentary army. The events leading up to this campaign and battle were complicated but it might be summarized as the last hope of the Irish Confederacy of building on earlier gains and achieving a decisive military victory which would enable a separate Irish confederacy to dictate the terms of any Irish settlement, rather than in an alliance with English Royalists...
This battle was featured as a scenario in Wargames Illustrated 256. The scenario details were based on using the Warhammer English Civil War set, but I used my favoured Polemos:ECW rules.
:strip_icc()/pic77460.jpg)
:strip_icc()/pic206161.jpg)
There isn't a map with the scenario (grrr!) and there aren't that many online, but since the terrain is pretty simple, I suppose that doesn't matter too much. However, there is a very nice map in Nick Lipscombe's marvellous book, so no real harm done.
The magazine scenario gives the following forces:
Irish Confederacy:
General: Viscount Taaffe (Average)
Right Wing:
Commanders: Lieutenant-General Alasdair MacColla (Good); Purcell (Average)
3 bases of Veteran Irish Foot (M)
4 bases of Raw Irish Foot* (M)
4 bases of Raw Horse (Swedish)
Left Wing:
Commander: Baron Castleconnell (Average)
8 bases of Raw Irish Foot* (M)
6 bases of Trained Horse (Swedish)
1 base of Trained Horse** (Swedish)
Parliament:
General: Baron Inchiquin (Good)
Right Wing:
Colonel Temple (Average)
4 bases of Veteran Foot (SH)
1 base of Veteran Foot (S)
5 bases of Trained Horse (Dutch)
Left Wing:
Commanders: Major-General Craig (Average), Colonel Bridges (Average)
4 bases of Trained Foot (SH)
4 bases of Trained Horse** (Dutch)
1 base of Trained Artillery
*Polemos: ECW gives some specific rules for Irish Foot, although these are strictly optional. I am not entirely clear whether this should apply to all Foot who happen to be Irish, or it was intended for MacColla's troops only.
** Includes a unit entitled 'Lifeguards'; (very) optionally the Confederates can designate one base as Elite, the Parliamentarians two bases. I am sceptical...
Astute observers will notice that I actually used slightly different numbers of bases in this re-fight. I was slightly puzzled by the order of battle used in the WI article, since the sources are reasonably clear that the Parliamentarians had more Horse, whereas the article gives the Confederacy the advantage here.
The Parliamentary camp is represented on the edge of the table. If any Confederate unit has a clear path to the camp, it must head for it rather than pursue a broken enemy unit.
The Set-Up:
 |
| The two armies face each other, the Confederates on the high ground (top) facing the Parliamentarians in front of the stream (bottom) |
 |
| A slightly closer view of the Parliamentarian Left (bottom, centre) in front of the stream and the camp (bottom), opposed by the Confederate Right (top) |
 |
| The Confederate Left Wing, with its flanking Horse units slightly refused (right) |
 |
| Facing them is the Parliamentary Right Wing |
 |
| One last view of the overall dispositions |
The Battle:
 |
| The battle begins, ignoring some ineffective Parliamentarian artillery fire on MacColla's Redshanks, with the Horse on the Parliamentary Right advancing (right) |
 |
| A closer look |
 |
| The forward troops meet |
 |
| The Confederate Horse gets rather the better of the exchange, pushing back the Parliamentary troopers |
 |
| Suddenly, discouraged, some of the Parliamentary Horse routs (foreground) whilst others are pushed back (centre-left); the Parliamentary right-hand troops have done rather better though, pushing back their opponents in turn (top) |
 |
| A closer look at that |
 |
| Meanwhile, Inchiquin's infantry have marched up into musketry range and started delivering devastating fire into the Confederate ranks, outmatching them in numbers of muskets and in accuracy of fire |
 |
| Inchiquin's musketeers in the centre prove equally formidable |
 |
| The Parliamentary Horse on the left flank attack and drive back the opposing Confederacy Horse (top) |
 |
| The Parliamentary Foot demonstrate against the Irish Foot |
 |
| Taafe launches a desperate cavalry charge in the centre to drive back the advancing Parliamentary Foot... |
 |
| The Irish Foot on their left advance to try and negate the Parliamentary Foot's fire superiority |
 |
| The cavalry conflict on the Confederate Left becomes more general, as some of the Confederate Horse squadrons rout (top) |
 |
| A wider view of the Confederate Left |
 |
| Taaffe manages to get his horsemen to close, but the Parliamentary Foot stands firm - Taaffe is brought down and captured! The Horsemen try to rally further back up the slope |
 |
| The rest of Inchiquin's Foot hold on similarly against the attack of the Confederate Foot and Baron Castleconnel is wounded and must leave the field... |
 |
| However, the Parliamentary Horse on the Right is in total disarray, with two-thirds of its troops now fleeing as fast as their horses will carry them... |
 |
| The view across the battlefield: the Parliamentary Horse on the left and the Parliamentary Foot on the centre-right are pushing back the Confederates, but the Parliamentary Horse on the right are streaming away from the battlefield... |
 |
| The Confederate Horse on their right are bested and routed by the Parliamentary troopers, and they sweep away some of the Confederate Foot in their flight (top) |
 |
| In the centre, some of the Confederate Horse and Foot have been routed... |
 |
| The Parliamentary Foot in the centre-right are making similar progress |
 |
| However, Castleconnel's troopers have clearly triumphed over their Parliamentary foes, Colonel Temple is captured and Inchiquin's right flank is in very serious danger! |
 |
| A wider shot at this stage of the battle - both sides have had their Right flanks fatally compromised, and both have lost a key leader. A strange sense of indecision sweeps across the battlefield and neither sides soldiers can be persuaded to engage seriously... |
 |
| The open Parliamentary Right... |
 |
| The turned Irish Right (top-left)... |
 |
| The Parliamentary Foot has ascended the slopes but is refusing to advance further...the Confederate Foot and Horse cannot be induced to charge to sweep them down... |
Game Notes: A very interesting outcome, in that both sides' morale failed quite early and more or less simultaneously! Neither sides' remaining leaders were able to induce their troops to charge again. On balance, the Confederates would probably be the side forced to withdraw, but in relatively good order and without any of the dramatic war-changing losses, not least the loss of Alasdair MacColla and his 'Redshank' troops which characterized the original.
Often I use the same broad strategy as the original commanders for these type of historical refights but this time I chose almost the opposite strategy, keeping the Confederates mainly on the defensive, whereas the real battle was characterized by the charge of MacColla's troops to sweep away the Parliamentary Foot and Guns facing them, and then the subsequent collapse of the remainder of the Confederate army. With the artillery rules in Polemos:ECW, there was never much likelihood of MacColla being 'forced' to attack (there needs to be a 5-point swing to inflict meaningful damage on Veteran Foot, and that was just very unlikely at any range where the Foot couldn't just advance and take the guns anyway). Is this a problem with rules calibration - not sure, and I have already moderately changed things to make fire more effective. Perhaps the range modifiers for artillery are just that little bit too severe to reflect its morale effect.
As for the rest of the fighting, there were no great surprises: the Confederates had the rub of the green in some of the cavalry melees, generally foregoing the risks of getting into uncontrollable charges by using the advantage of the slopes to force the Parliamentary troopers into making even odds attacks. Castleconnel's troopers never got out of hand and were thus never forced into the uncontrolled pursuits which past experience has taught me quickly turns victory into defeat for armies possessing the more 'dashing' varieties of horsemen! The quality differential on one flank and the absence of it on the other explain the different outcomes on each flank.
The rules allow the possibility of simultaneous morale failures at an Army-level but I think this is the first time that I encountered it. It actually made my decision not to use 'Elite' troops important, since 'Elite' troops would still have been able to operate on one of the sides, I forget which, and would probably have cleaned up...
I mentioned in the scenario notes that it is unclear whether the average Confederate Foot unit showed so much more elan that they were prepared to charge home in a way impossible for their English opponents and therefore use the Polemos: ECW optional 'Irish' rules. Conversely, I allowed MacColla's men to use the 'Irish' rules but perhaps they should have used the 'Highlander' optional rules? In essence, both optional rules allow these troops to 'charge' rather than advance to contact, with the 'Irish' ability to use ranged musketry combat diminishing and the Highlanders not to use it at all (IIRC). More expert opinions than mine definitely sought...
Anyway, a good time was had by all, i.e. me !, and I am looking forward to getting this back onto the table quite quickly to see if the result turns out differently next time. I am also developing an itch to incorporate the fighting in Scotland and Ireland into a full 'War of the Three Kingdoms' campaign, but still thinking about how to do that...
Figures by Baccus 6mm.
I may try this one too. What do the foote designations denote ('S', 'M','SH')? Thank you for the battle report.
ReplyDeleteMany thanks, Jonathan. The designations used with Foot in the Polemos:ECW rules are: S - All shot; SH - Shot Heavy; M - Even Mix; PH - Pike heavy; P - All pike. I have commented on previous games that the calibration of the rules as is heavily favours M over SH, so much so that I re-calibrated the ranged combat table to reverse that.
DeleteThanks for the explanation. Does 'Even Mix' represent the traditional 2:1 ratio of shot to pike or a 1:1 mix?
DeleteNo worries. Even Mix represents 1:1. It isn't an exact science, so one might represent 3:2 as Mixed if the opposition was entirely 2:1 Shot Heavy, and so on.
DeleteVery well done. Lots to think about there and an enjoyable read. Oddly enough I was just thinking about the battle the other day.
ReplyDeleteIt is funny when that happens, isn't it? Anyway, many thanks for your kind words.
DeleteNot sure I am an expert, but PM:ECW Irish and highlander rules were really designed for Montrose's campaigns, not the actual (very complex and confusing) situation in Ireland proper. The charge tactics were largely a response to lack of gunpowder and muskets more than anything else, I think.
ReplyDeleteThat said, as MacColla seems to have been one of the instituters of the 'highland' charge then giving his men that ability would be reasonable, and also give them a reason to charge. I doubt the Irish troops of the Confederacy were the same quality as those who went to Scotland, so having them as 'normal' foot is probably best.
The artillery rule in PM:ECW do reflect the fact that really field guns achieved little in action. They mostly annoyed people, apart from the unfortunates who got in the way of a cannonball. The danger for the wargamer is twofold: firstly reading Napoleonic artillery back to the 1600s - the technology had changed a lot in the interim, and Napoleonic artillery was a lot more powerful (and there was a lot more of it) than in earlier times. The other danger is underestimating the morale impact of being shot at and not being able to shoot back. If you do nothing about artillery in PM:ECW it will slowly cause your ranks to fall into disarray, which was the idea of the guns in C17 anyway. I'm not defending PM:ECW, which may well need recalibrating, but that is what we are trying to model as I see it.
Morale failure on both sides is not unknown, and does seem to have happened in real life occasionally. Knocknanuss is a bit of an odd battle, really. Often it is dismissed as a skirmish at which MacColla got himself killed, but it was more important than that. I suspect there are not many sources available, which is a problem.
Many thanks for those comments, very helpful. The recommendations for the Foot are very close to what I actually did for the re-fight and seemed to work well. Regarding the artillery, the Polemos:ECW rules make it very not like Napoleonic artillery in its effectiveness, but the other mechanics of the Polemos:ECW set seem to conspire against it having that slow morale and attritional effect you describe. A level of 'Shaken' is quite hard for artillery to achieve at anything but the shortest distances, single levels of 'Shaken' from fire are relatively easy to rally away and there just isn't a mechanism for the increasing effectiveness of enduring fire, the odds for doing damage are the same on the first turn of fire as on the tenth. I wonder if there should be a ranging mechanic in which each subsequent round of fire eliminates one of the negative range penalties? So artillery at 4BW range currently fires with a -3 modifier, but if one of those minuses was removed for each turn of firing at the same target (maybe at the same range) then by the fourth continuous turn of fire (which would represent 20-30 minutes of battle, I guess) then the artillery would be rolling from a base '0' modifier. It still wouldn't be decisive since the firing table doesn't really allow that anyway, but would create a much stronger incentive to not sit around under artillery fire. Or some such thing.
DeleteVery much agreed on the importance of the battle - the numbers involved and the effect indicate it is something that enthusiasts of the period should pay more attention to. It is also a depressing instance of the observation I have read (in the Experience of the Civil War book, perhaps?) that battles involving Irish troops were always much bloodier, since there were more massacres of defeated soldiers/prisoners whether as victors or as the defeated.
You've achieved a remarkable thing - made me open the PM: ECW rules. I think you might be right that the range reduction for field artillery is a bit swingeing. I'd go now for a 4 BW range with no reductions, followed by the -1 per BW.
DeleteIn fact, in my WotCR rules, I do 4 BW, I think, followed by a roll a D6 to see if you hit anything. This is based on Bert Hall's book about how artillery actually worked - over point blank range (before the shot starts to dip due to gravity) the spin of the ball makes it inaccurate.
Sadly the Irish component of the Wars were a disaster for everyone involved. Estimates suggest that about 20% of the population died from war, famine and disease. The 1641 propaganda also ensured that massacres were more frequent, and the navy patrolling the Irish Sea had the very nasty habit of tying the Irish they took back to back and dropping them in the sea.
Blair Worden commented that the was in England was reasonably civil, but in Scotland and Ireland it was anything but.
Thanks very much for the artillery suggestions, I will incorporate them and see how they work out.
DeleteAnd yes, as you say about Ireland and Scotland. Although no wars are exactly fun to read about, reading about those two theatres of war in this period makes me wince more than normal at the sheer cruelty.