Tags
Bloodline, Conn Iggulden, England, Field of Glory, Field of Glory II, Field of Glory II Medieval, Wars of the Roses
Bloodline continues on after the Second Battle of St. Albans and gives a front-line view of the Battle of Towton. I really appreciate this way of looking at this battle; as historical fiction. It is one thing to describe the effects of the snow, the mismatch in army quantity and quality, and the late arrival of York’s right “battle” to save the day, but a dramatized (even if fictionalized) account of the same brings it so much better into focus.
Likewise, in contrast with wargaming where the +1s and +2s on your commanders are accepted as a matter of course, a narrative illustration of just what superior command ability can mean does wonders. Would someone other than Fauconberg have recognized that the wind and snow meant he could order his archers to fire blind into the enemy ranks with impunity? That should get him a plus. Likewise, charisma and sheer size* earn Edward IV a few command bonuses, even if there is no logical reason that a commander’s battle skills should translate to the performance of his division.
Field of Glory II, as I mentioned, now offers a Wars of the Roses DLC which includes a Battle of Towton in the stock epic battles. I’ve yet to purchase that DLC so, here, you get a cheapskate’s take on that battle as rendered in the Field of Glory II: Medieval engine. This is because, as I also mentioned, there is a user-made campaign (of sorts) cover the Wars of the Roses. Naturally, such a campaign contains a scenario for Towton. While that scenario is designed a) for campaign play and b) as a multiplayer-only experience, it is straightforward to play against the AI, especially if you are willing to play as York.
![](https://ettubluto.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/towton1.jpg?w=1024)
The obvious compare and contrast exercise, for me, is with respect to the Pike and Shot scenario that I played last winter.
At first glance (link directly to the P&S screenie), the battlefield looks considerably less developed that my previous run. I am not sure, however, that this is entirely fair. After I finished playing the scenario as it comes “out of the box,” if you will, I wondered to myself if I could improve it a bit with some editing.
Naturally, one improvement I could make is to substitute the historical leaders for the generic “C&C” and “sub-general” designations shown above. I also took a look that the britishbattles.com description of The Battle of Towton, which includes order of battle and a detailed sketch of terrain. What I concluded is that this “stockwellpete” layout is probably pretty durn good as it stands and those changes that I could be making would probably only alter to reasonably-justifiable design decisions.
![](https://ettubluto.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/towton2.jpg?w=1024)
For one example, the strict linear layout in three lines of battle (plus Norfolk’s force arriving on the right) doesn’t quite mesh with the historical divisions. And yet it might be one reasonable interpretation, especially given the PC game as canvas. Separating Fauconburg and his archers from, and deploying them ahead of, the other two divisions on the field; under Edward IV and Warwick sets up the opening casualties courtesy of York’s bowmen.
For example two I, in my top screenshot, grumble about the plainness (pun, this time, intended) of the terrain. Detailed examination, in the editor, reveals that the hills, valleys, roads, and woods all line up very well with the British Battles maps. What is missing is that the “Towton Vale,” at shown at the link, is sketched as marshy (as is the terrain on the flanks of the battlefield). The Pike and Shot version has some marshy squares in the valley, but neither does not separate the two armies completely by difficult terrain. This leaves me to wonder, is it wise to place really bad terrain between the armies? Is the terrain even as “really” bad as it is sketched on the map, or are some “marshes” marshier than others? What would the added marsh do to play balance and the playability of the scenario? In the end, I decided that second guessing stockwellpete might neither improve the scenario nor provide me with any additional and meaningful experience.
I elected not to mess with what I had.
![](https://ettubluto.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/towton3.jpg?w=1024)
In the end, the result of this battle (see final turn illustrated, above) aligned very well with history. Before Norfolk’s late engagement, I was holding my own (maybe even a little better than history would dictate), but was not winning. Norfolk’s flanking maneuver put the math for scenario victory over the edge as well as clearly setting York’s forces up to sweep into the flank and rear of the Lancasters. Field of Glory II generally does not have you play through the “pursuit” phase of your victory, so I am left to image the massacre as it would occur.
Finally, so as to properly refresh my memory, I replayed the Pike and Shot version of the scenario. If you clicked back to my earlier post, you’ll see that I lost before… but by the thinnest of margins. This time I won. This time, also, I was careful to use my forces as they would have been used historically. Playing these two scenarios back-to-back, I can attest that it was the Field of Glory version that felt most authentic.
As a final, parting shot, I’ll add that both of these scenario designs attempted to capture York’s early advantage gained through the unanswered arrow assault. Both do this by giving York some combat bonuses that Lancaster does not have. In neither case, however, did I get what I thought should be the right feel for this advantage, borne of wind, snow, and better battlefield awareness. There is a reason that society values the reading of books over the playing of games. In this case, “they” have a point.
*Edward’s skeleton, which was exhumed in 1789, measures nearly 6′ 4″ tall. His good looks, physical presence, and popularity are all well documented, but how often does that make it into a description of a battle, especially as a factor in the victory? The description of Edward in battle brings to mind one of the most personally-influential parts from The Once and Future King; the characterization of wealthy nobles as virtually invulnerable on the battlefield. Iggulden describes the superior design of Edward’s armor which makes him immune to all but the most precisely (and vigorously) delivered blows. Edward’s strength and prowess can further guarantee that no opponent can line up such an attack meaning that as long as his strength and stamina holds, he cannot be brought down in combat.