My Kingdom for a Horse <– Click this link for the Word Document
These rules are for fighting small scale battles with men armed with swords, halberds, bows etc. The ‘engine’ is based on a Dark Age set a friend wrote, which I have expanded and polished (I hope) and covers the Wars Of The Roses as well. Any thoughts queries etc please post here.
These Rules are Copyright Ian Hopping 2006. You may download them from any site on which I have placed them for free. You may not place them on any other site, or reproduce them without my express permission. You may not make a profit from distributing these rules, however if you want to use them to promote your organisation (e.g. demo game) go ahead. Multiple copies of the QR for a game is fine. You are a wargamer, so almost certainly will alter rules- that’s fine, as long as you don’t try to pass the altered rules off as yours. You may only use these rules if you agree to stick by (and actually do stick by) Rule Number One. Failure to keep to Rule Number One means you may not play these rules until you do keep to it.
RULE NUMBER ONE. It’s only a game. You are to show sportsmanship at all times. You are not to try to squeeze every last advantage from the rules. You are to remind the opponent if he forgets something. You are not to measure to minute amounts to try and gain advantage (see page 6 for an example). In case of dispute do what seems most logical, and if you still can’t agree flip a coin. PLAY NICELY.
Ian,
Interesting set of rules. Here’s a few comments:
1. (picky, I know but it niggles me) You do not “fire” a bow, you shoot with it. Suggest you change all references to “fire” and “firing” to “shoot” and “shooting”.
2. The quote from Newark is woefully inaccurate, I therefore suggest you remove it (or at least edit it drastically).
“Soldiers were not recruited, as in later times, but were obliged to serve the lord who employed them on his land. They were his servants and labourers, and as such would be led by him into battle to fight by his side. ”
By the time of the Wars of the Roses this form of feudalism had pretty much died out. It was replaced by so-called “Bastard Feudalism” – in which those who owed military service to a lord piad money instead of service. The money thus raised was used by the lord to recruit retainers into his retinue (a retinue was thus effectively the lord’s private army and that of a great lord could number several hundreds – not a handful!) The Hundred Years War was recently over so there were any number of trained men available for hire. These were professionals in all but name. Retainers were hired under a system called “livery and maintenance” by which a lord contracted to pay a man a set sum each year in return for military service and that the retainer wear the lord’s livery.
The other form of recruitment in the Wars of the Roses was the “commission of array” whereby a summons was sent to a locality (a town or a rural county) to provided a certain number of men equipped and trained for military service. Militia in other words.
Hope that helps
Mike
Mike- thanks for that.
-shoot/fire. I always said that. The acceptability of ‘fire’ was told to me a couple of years ago- I am tracking down sources, and will get back on that. (Now those buggers who say chainmail, hangings too good for ‘em).
-OK I see where you are going with the history. However as a 1:1 set, vast armies are not an option. The game also runs from (and indeed was originally based in) the dark ages, which is more my period, so the idea of a lord turning up with a bunch of blokes, as it were, could vary through history. The lord could be a mercenary captain for instance- adjust nomenclature for your period. Alternatively it could be a minor scuffle- one that hasn’t been recorded, with a local landowner taking advantage of the national strife.
Please don’t feel I’m dismissing your comments out of hand- I’ll look into it for the alternative angles you have given me.
Intersting rules.
I’d second the comment om shooting not firing, there is no connection between the two. Prior to fire amrs there was no connextion between fire and missles. Even then there is no flame involved in shooting the bow. If you have a period referance to firing in connection with bows/crossbows I’d be interested to see it.
Best
Jonathan
I contacted my mate who had corrected my correction who replied with this
“I’d have to dig around for the original provenance for “fire”, but I think it was from a 15th century manuscript. Otherwise I believe the usual term was “loose” rather than “shoot”.
”
The entry on one educator site gives his specialisation as “Formal and informal family learning; activity based interpretation (especially history, archaeology, arts); creation and evaluation of resources.” I took the oppotunity to pick his brains when developing the rules (I’m more a dark ages person than medieval) as he does have an awful lot of source material. Also lodged in the back of my brain is my Thegn(from re-enacting) commenting on the same- though I can’t give source for that. I remember being surpised when I found out there is no straight cause and effect connection on “shoot with gun powder being Fire”.
The rules themselves were based on a convention participation set developed by said thegn, and were based on our re-enacting skirmishes. I know that’s often a bad sign in a wargame preamble, but it meant that my fuller version, as well as the original set moved away from the passive ‘I get hit’ of D&D style rules, hence the opposed hit roll, and the fact armour stops damage, it doesn’t make hitting harder. What I haven’t been able to model is a key part of any dark age skirmish (ie loose order rather than shield walls) which is where a swords man constantly advances on a spearman to get into range, while the spearman retreats in an attempt to keep the swords man in front of his point, all the while turning to keep the shield between them, resulting in a clockwise spiral. If the game works well then 1 on 1 should be near impossible to resolve, especially if both have shields. You need to get a local superority in one flank (preferably your left) then roll them up in a series of 3:2 encounters.
About the “fire” thing. Back in the day you would “fire” a town. To “fire” something is to put “fire” to it. The first firearms had no trigger. They were fired with a slow match. So, to “fire” a weapon is to put fire to it in order to shoot. So, firing a bow, crossbow, sling, whatever is a really bad idea.
While it is technically wrong to fire a bow, it does not add confusion. Keep it or change it as you like.
John
I have a reply
I’ll look at those quotes, thanks. However it still doesn’t change the fact that one shoots or looses a bow and doesn’t give fire to it.
Best
JW
Maybe in modern usage- but ‘fire’ was used 600 years ago.
Two quotes does not a precident make!! hehe. However as point of the two quotes one is French and one then has to ask who did the translating?
[...] My Kingdon for a Horse -These rules are for fighting small scale battles with men armed with swords, halberds, bows etc. Click Here [...]