PROJECT LEWES

This is the most daunting painting task I have set myself - a unit of 70 spear and 12 archers. Construction of the figures alone took over a week (a busy life schedule). The unit is to represent the London levy or trained militia men if you prefer. Whilst they ultimately fell to the royal cavalry I suspect it was no walk-over and contemporary chronicle accounts are most likely a simplified account of what transpired. Whilst these men had not fought in an open battle of the likes of Lewes, they were no strangers to armed conflict when it came to controlling London and resisting would-be-oppressors including the King. Charged with protecting the city, I have depicted them as well armed and relatively drilled troops. The manufacturers represented in this unit include almost even proportions of Kingmaker Miniatures , Curtey's Miniatures , Essex Miniatures , Foundry ,  Gripping Beast and Mirliton Miniatures . I have swapped shields, spears, made other spears, cut away pre-moulded

When it comes to analysis of thirteenth century tactics and doctrine of warfare, there remains a lot yet to be written. Plugging some of the gaps is this worthy tome by Michael Prestwich who concentrates on the English experience with a particular emphasis on the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, making it a must have for my money. First published in 1996 through Yale University Press, Professor Prestwich (Durham University) draws together every conceivable reference from chronicles to public records, royal records and pictorial studies to paint a picture of how English medieval armies functioned. I have at this time principally read the chapter dedicated to Infantry (Chapter 5, pp 115-147 2006 reprint) together with his forward and first chapter on the Nature of Medieval Warfare . Whilst reference to particular battles is made and the book provides a vital context to appreciating the army organisations present at the time of Lewes, Professor Prestwich is direct in admitting h

The above London coat of arms is taken from the earliest surviving example from the 16th century and obviously (perhaps) of a construct developed long after the 13th century. Nevertheless, the principle shield device or blazon is understood to be from a much earlier time from 'ancient usage'. Like so many within the European or christian world, the cult of St. George and the dragon held fast in the imagination of people and clearly the citizenry of London were no exception.  The cross of St. George appears to have had a sustained period of adoption from the crusades in Outremer, particularly adopted by the Templars, and endures today in the flag of England. So, I too will be adopting this device for many of my London militia in the left ward under Nicholas de Segrave at Lewes. Whilst the Guilds dominated the urban social, economic and political landscape of London, specific liveries do not appears to have been an outward feature of organisation or representation until the

Nicholas de Segrave of Leicestershire (later, the first officially recognised ‘Baron’ Segrave) was born 1238, the eldest surviving son and heir of Gilbert de Segrave and Amabilia (or Annabel) daughter and heiress of Robert de Chaucumb. Nicholas’ father (Gilbert) died in prison at Pons, Saintonge in 1254 but according to the Dunstable Annals , custody of his estates were granted Prince Edward. Attaining his twentieth year by the Oxford Parliament, this disenfranchised Leicestershire land-holder had good casue in advocating the Provisions which limited the King's authority: he had personal interests aligning himself with the elder Simon de Montfort more other than just falling within the Earl’s socio-political orbit. He was at the parliament in 1262, when the King told the barons that he had obtained absolution from his oath to observe the Provisions of Oxford . How disempowered and frustrated must he have felt? Whilst summoned to attend the King at Worcester (1 August 1263) a

Thomas Pelvesdon (aka Puleston, Pilston or Pyvelesdon) was the son of Roger Pelvesdon of Newport, Shropshire. Roger is recorded as having the arms sable, three mullets argent and I have ascribed these arms to his son Thomas at Lewes but will difference them in that it seems likely that Thomas was a second or other son. A Roger Pelvesdon dedicated The Butter Cross  (also The Puleston Cross) which still stands in the Newport high street (a protected monument) to the memory of his father, Roger who died in 1272. It appears both Rogers were Sheriffs of the county and I surmise that Roger was the eldest son, having taken his father's name, manor and office. From an analysis of my Foster's Dictionary of Heraldry , the convention for the colour of labels on arms whose colours are black and white is red. Thusly, my Thomas of Pelvesdon will be sporting sable, three mullets argent a label (3) gules . The younger Thomas is recorded as having married Helen, niece to Michael Tovey who

Born in 1244, Guy de Montfort was the youngest son of Simon de Montfort, Earl of Leicester, leader of the baronial army at Lewes. Commanding men within the right ward of the army, Guy was 20 years of age at Lewes and I have difficulty imagining the terror, fear, anxiety, thrill and exhilaration which this warrior youth must have felt throughout that eventful day. A proud day for his father, Guy fought with his two brothers, storming to victory against the odds. This family affair extended to the opposition also, as the opposing general was Guy's own uncle, King Henry III - his mother's brother. Another uncle also commanded against them: Richard of Cornwall, together with his son, Henry of Almain who Guy must have viewed as a deceiver, Henry only having recently deserted the rebels to go over to the King, betraying Guy and his father's cause. Prince Edward (another cousin and future King) also fought against them. These perspectives are important to consider as this

Having embarked on the Rebel Left Ward of the London levy, I realised that my foot unit of 70 spearmen and combined archers are going to take me some time to assemble - let alone paint. I shifted to the archers as they were assembled in a day which is what I want to talk about in this post. When I say assembled, this is not just a term for the new hard plastic figures coming out. Every unit requires some degree of modelling and I had flagged in my previous archer post that I wanted to pay my next unit of entirely new figures a bit more attention to detail. These men represent what I have determined are the archers of London, as part of the London levy under the direct command of Nicholas de Segrave. As I am going to be wargaming Lewes using Warhammer Ancient Battles , in WAB terms this large infantry unit will be a mixed body with 12 archers forming part of it in addition to the 70 spearmen.  As they are of London, I am anticipating that the soldiery of the kingdom's greatest

At last the remaining body of 32 soldiers has been completed for my Rebel Right ward. These figures I have determined to be rural levied infantry from the de Montfort and allied estates under the command of the last of my de Montfort sons, Guy de Montfort . I have taken some time to differentiate these soldiers from its sister unit - more of a reliance upon green hues and less on the browns to help identify them from their brethren under Simon de Montfort (younger). I have kept with the same principles for shield depiction and the extension of the white cross onto not only clothing but shields as the rebel field sign. The cross was a much used symbol by de Montfort in his rebellion and rule stemming from his zelous pity and its application in a propaganda campaign to rally the population to his 'legitimate' cause and to motivate his armies in the field. Fixed to 'back and breast', the crosses are cited by the Chronicle of William de Rishanger and Matthew Paris

Inspired by a fellow blogger Bigredbat who I follow, I knew it was time to think about casualty markers for morale purposes. The thing with these sorts of game additions is that we often leave them as a last resort or after thought but I determine to get them underway as I went to ensure I didn't need to make a dozen at once at the end which for me would be tedious. I have taken two of Essex Miniatures caparisoned horses because I had plenty spare: most of their accompanying knights falling outside of the 1260s. Essex also caste in a flexible white metal which I hazard has a lead content unlike more modern pewter castings. In spite of their thickness, these horses can be manipulated with enough force so I modelled one marker with the rider dead and the horse beginning to get back up from the fall whilst the other knight is knocked out from crashing off his killed and fallen steed. The knights themselves are again Essex Miniatures but were foot knights with their stands

This has been a long time coming but I have just finished my first body of Rebel foot to basing stage. They represent lightly armed foot soldiery of the Right Ward under the overall command of Henry de Montfort and led personally by his younger brother Guy. The figures are essentially Curtey's Miniatures and Gripping Beast (GB) with two Essex and one Old Glory figure hiding within the ranks. The Curtey's Miniatures figures are a relatively new range and specifically aim to supply the mid thirteenth century wargamers with a suitable range of figures not specifically covered by other manufacturers and I am very pleased with them indeed. Whilst they are designed similarly to GB, they do not suffer the same engineering faults - the spears and receiving hands fit with little modification required. The GB figures are pretty as always and these miniatures are from their crusading pilgrims range and come with raised crosses on most of them (see ginger mooustache and black hat). T

In a previous post (Book Review: E.L. Mann’s ‘The Battle of Lewes’) I referred to Mann’s analysis of the motivation for engagement at Lewes. Mann believed that the forces were near to equal and that the battle fell in favour of de Montfort when King Henry gave up his advantage of a strong defensive position from within Lewes. Furthermore, the drive for coming out to battle is explained in terms of the knightly class pursuit of glory in a chivalric tradition. From my discourse on the subject of the size of the armies present at Lewes in 1264 (Discourse: How Big was Lewes?) my position on the armies remains that there existed a Royal superiority in the vicinity of 3:2 or greater. If so, Mann’s estimation of numbers is at odds with mine. This in turn undermines any sympathy I can have with criticism of Henry in giving up a necessary defensive advantage. On the contrary, his superiority was more than quantitative inasmuch as his overwhelming advantage in heavy cavalry would have given t

When it comes to identifying the Rebels, and I'm really talking about the knights, I have been presented with a number of problems. The first is that such a list does not appear to exist. This is most probably because no one until now (ie: me) required one. After all, who but a wargamer, attempting to represent a battle visually with as much accuracy as possible, would need to identify individual knights present on the fieled of Lewes? The list which follows is a work in progress and stems from my research into secondary sources as well as an examination of chronicles, the Fine Rolls of Henry III for the years 1263 and 1264 (available now on line) and the Patent Rolls of the same years made available on line by the Iowa University Library. Perhaps obvious to the wargamer, it is not enough to identify a knight named as a Rebel. Identified Rebel knights also need to have an identifiable blazon or shield device in order for me to paint a corresponding figure and depict that person i

Published by Pen & Sword Military press (2006), Brian Carey and Joshua Allfree have assembled the best military analysis of the medieval age I have ever read. Accompanied by the fantastically explanatory and evolutionary illustrations of John Cairns, this book demonstrates applied tactical doctrine through 33 battles and their accompanying campaigns, debugging the persistent historical myths and misconceptions of medieval warfare and generalship. Specific to mid thirteenth century warfare, Chapter 5 'Late Medieval Warfare: The Return of Light Infantry" dedicates 38 pages to an analysis of the battle of Bouvines (1214) and the campaigns of Edward in Wales and Scotland to demonstrate the importance of combined arms fieldcraft, the importance of infantry in the age of chivalric warfare and the increasing presence and impact of ranged weaponry of the crossbow and selfbow armed soldiery. Of particular interest is a discussion of horse armour in response to archery. Whilst