MURTEN REIMAGINED

What if, instead of a “dull and wet Saturday morning,” as Richard Vaughan describes the weather on the fateful day of 22 June 1476 in his scholarly and excellent book, Charles the Bold: The Last Valois Duke of Burgundy, when a disorganized and unprepared Burgundian army was routed by the irresistible advance of Swiss contingents, the weather had been fair and mild? Admittedly, a long and somewhat complex question, but still one that merits consideration. Further, what if the engagement took place five days prior, on 17 June? What if a group of several thousand Swiss soldiers did not have to force march 140 kilometers in just three days and then, upon arrival, get a very brief period of rest (in a driving rainstorm, it should be mentioned) before joining their fellow countrymen and going into battle? Finally, what if, just for the sake of this exercise, the Duke was given the moniker Charles the Competent instead of Charles the Rash, and had his army of approximately 15,000 drawn up in prepared positions and ready for battle on that aforementioned albeit adjusted date? 

After a few frustrating weeks of studying new source material, after starting and then stopping more than several drafts wherein I attempted to explain or narrate how I would stage a refight of the historical battle of Murten, I decided to “move the goal posts” as it were. I decided to explore a different avenue. Instead of stressing over a Featherstone-quality refight of this particular historical battle, I would simply create a counterfactual scenario. As for the general look of my model landscape, I would rely on the wargamer-friendly diagram provided on page 388 of Richard Vaughan’s text. As for the orders of battle, I would also rely, in very large part, on his research. Additional information would be gleaned from other sources, a few of these being used in my previous post, “Modeling Morat,” which was published to this blog on January 24. As for the rules that would be employed for this solo scenario, I thought I might try or revisit Simon Miller’s innovative, dice-less and ruler-free To The Strongest!

Unfortunately, recent developments, most notably a rather spectacular failure to stage a refight of a “makeover of Magnesia” using To The Strongest! have given me pause, reason to withdraw, regroup, and reconsider what I am looking for or trying to accomplish with such large endeavors. As a result, instead of a traditional battle report, the following pages present a scenario or an outline for a scenario of the proposed counterfactual. 

Terrain

Several enlargements were made of the map found on page 388 of Charles The Bold. Using the provided ground scale, I crafted a crude transparent overlay in order to determine the best orientation of my tabletop model. After doing some basic calculations, it appeared that it would be possible to use my smaller table (45 inches by 78 inches) to represent a rectangle of battlefield measuring approximately 2 kilometers across by 3 kilometers in length. This would permit me to model the four identified hills or knolls, the built-up-areas of Burg and Salvenach, the ravine bordering the eastern side of Burg, and the edges of both the Murtenwald and Galmwald. I would also be able to replicate the rather extensive road network across this six square kilometers of ground. Additional figuring informed that I could prepare a gridded battlefield measuring 14 squares by 21 squares, with the sides of these squares being a uniform three inches. This would result in an approximate ground scale of 47.6 meters to the inch, though I would not be so very concerned with this metric. 

Troops

On page 391 of his superlative book, Richard Vaughan informs the interested historical wargamer about the command structure of the Swiss formation. He explains: 

The van was commanded by Hans von Hallwil of the Aargau . . .; the centre by 

        Zuricher Hans Waldmann; and the rearguard by Caspar von Hertenstein . . . A 

        cavalry contingent from the Lower Union powers led by Duke Rene of Lorraine . 

        . . advanced separately, ready to protect the flanks of the van. 

At the bottom of this same page, the prolific author estimates the strength of the Swiss, offering, “perhaps it approached 25,000 men in all.” Turning to another source, in “The Battle of Murten: The Invasion of Charles the Bold and the Survival of the Swiss States,” a paper submitted to the Swiss American Historical Society Review, Albert Winkler notes:

The size of the Swiss army at the battle of Murten was probably larger than the 

        force at Granson [sic]. Panigorola [sic] stated he talked with two prominent Swiss         

        prisoners after the battle of Murten who told him that there were 30,000 men on 

        foot and 1,600 on horseback with the army. Recent historians have estimated the 

        size of the Swiss infantry at nearly 24,000 men.

While the writing team of Roger Douglas Smith and Kelly DeVries are discussing an earlier contest (Grandson), their broad description of the composition of the Swiss army on page 190 of their excellent study, The Artillery of the Dukes of Burgundy: 1363—1477, is rather helpful. Evidently, there were five pieces to the Swiss formation “puzzle.” These were: “pikemen, halberdiers, crossbowmen, coulovriniers, and cavalry.” 

Under the Representative Scale section of Version 1.1 of his rules, Simon Miller explains, “To The Strongest! does not prescribe a particular representative scale (i.e., the number of real-world soldiers that are represented on the table by a single miniature.)” He continues, describing a variety of scales and approaches based on figure scale and financial reserves of the interested player-generals. As I do not use painted miniatures, this question is somewhat moot. However, if I establish an approximate scale of 1 unit represents around 500 actual men, then I can suggest that the Swiss army, at least for the purposes of this present project, could be modeled with 48 units. Following, please find a suggested order of battle for this fictional engagement, based on the Swiss 1291 to 1522 BCE army list. 

The Van or Vorhut

1 x Hans von Hallwil — attached heroic general on foot

4 x heroes

1 x light cavalry with crossbow

3 x light infantry with crossbow (skirmishers)

3 x light infantry with handgun (skirmishers)

3 x billmen, deep

2 x veteran billmen, deep

Van values: 24 victory points; demoralized with loss of 12 victory points / cost of 94 

The Main Body or Gewalthaufen

1 x Hans Waldermann — attached heroic general on foot

1 x anonymous subordinate commander — attached heroic general on foot

1 x Standards

12 x heroes

2 x light infantry with crossbow (skirmishers)

2 x light infantry with handgun (skirmishers)

6 x billmen, deep

7 x veteran billmen, deep

7 x veteran pikemen, deep

Gewalthaufen values: 70 victory points; demoralized with loss of 35 victory points / cost of 291 

The Reserve or Nachhut

1 x Caspar von Hertenstein — attached heroic general on foot 

4 x heroes

2 x light infantry with crossbow (skirmishers)

2 x light infantry with handgun (skirmishers)

3 x veteran billmen, deep

3 x veteran pikemen, deep

Nachhut values: 24 victory points; demoralized with loss of 12 victory points / cost of 93 

Cavalry contingent - 

1 x Rene, Duc of Lorraine — attached heroic mounted general

1 x hero

3 x Lorrainer Knights: lance, deep

Cavalry contingent values: 11 victory points; demoralized with loss of 6 victory points / cost of 70

If my calculations are correct, and constructive feedback is always appreciated, then it appears that the Swiss alliance has a victory point total of 129, which means their effort to throw off the yoke of Charles’s interference will fail when they lose 43 victory medals. In brief review, the Swiss will field 5 commanders, 21 heroes, and one stand of army banners or standards. They will have 3 units of knights, 14 units of skirmishers, and 31 units of billmen and or pikemen.

Shifting my attention to the Burgundian side of the model battlefield, I thought I might start with the artillery arm of Charles the Bold . . . I mean Competent. Unfortunately and as might be expected, the studied source material varied widely in estimations of the numbers of pieces present. The only solid evidence was found in the work written by Smith and DeVries. On page 191, they report on Charles trying to rebuild his army and especially his artillery strength after the loss at Grandson. They state: “His plea for gunpowder weapons resulted in a train of at least 50 serpentines and 3 large bombards and mortars.”The free Burgundian Ordonnance army list available from Simon Miller (please see  https://bigredbat.blogspot.com/2022/02/updated-to-strongest-medieval-army-list.html) offers two varieties or troop types: bombards (i.e., cannons) or organ guns (i.e., organ guns). As I could discover no preferred or suggested unit scale, I prepared 4 stands of bombards and 6 stands of organ guns. These “batteries” would be divided between a left, center, and right, with the majority of the pieces going to the center. 

In brief overview, 20 units of foot and 10 units of cavalry were fabricated for the heterogeneous formations under the command of Charles. My suggested or “work-in-progress” order of battle is “detailed” below. (Again, constructive feedback or suggestions for improvement/revision are appreciated.) 

Burgundian Left

1 x anonymous attached mounted general

1 x Bombards

1 x Organ Guns

2 x heroes

1 x Italian mounted crossbowmen

1 x Italian men-at-arms — later knights, lance

1 x Ordonnance archers — veteran longbow, stakes

2 x Ordonnance archers — spearmen with extra longbow

1 x other crossbowmen

1 x Ordonnance handgunners

Burgundian Left values: 18 victory points; demoralized with loss of 9 victory points / cost of 87

Burgundian Center

1 x Charles the Competent — senior, heroic, mounted general

1 x Army Standard

1 x subordinate commander — attached general on foot

2 x Bombards

2 x Organ Guns

4 x heroes

3 x Ordonnance gendarmes, etc. — later knights, lance

1 x Ducal Household — veteran later knights, lance

2 x Feudal men-at-arms — knights, no lance, raw

1 x Household infantry — veteran billmen, extra longbow

3 x Ordonnance pikemen — deep pikemen

3 x Ordonnance archers — bowmen, stakes

1 x English archers — veteran longbow, stakes

1 x other crossbowmen

1 x Ordonnance handgunners

Burgundian Center values: 45 victory points; demoralized with loss of 23 victory points / cost of 213

Burgundian Right

1 x anonymous attached mounted general

1 x Bombards

1 x Organ Guns

2 x heroes

1 x Italian mounted crossbowmen

1 x Feudal men-at-arms — knights, no lance, raw

1 x Ordonnance archers — veteran longbow, stakes

2 x Ordonnance archers — spearmen with extra longbow

1 x other crossbowmen

1 x Ordonnance handgunners

Burgundian Right values: 18 victory points; demoralized with loss of 9 victory points / cost of 87

Doing some more basic math, it appears that the total number of victory points on the Burgundian side of this fictional battle is 81. This means that Charles and his men will quit the field when 27 victory medals have been surrendered to the Swiss. In addition to being outnumbered in terms of actual units or “models” of units (there are 24 units in the Swiss main body and 28 units in the entire Burgundian force), the Burgundian point value is 287 compared to 551 for the Swiss contingents. 

Remarks

It might prove interesting to conduct a survey of historical wargamers to see how many approve of, disapprove of, or have no strong opinion either way about counterfactuals. Speaking for myself, I find them to be fertile ground for tabletop experiments and scenarios. I think “what if” wargames permit—if not encourage and require—the flexing of critical thinking skills. 

Given the imbalance in force sizes and point values, it appears that this scenario, at least in its current state of development, would seem to guarantee a Swiss victory. The degree of that predicted certainty remains to be seen. Perhaps then, some kind of parity can be reached by awarding the Burgundians victory points for staying on the field (tabletop) for a certain number of turns? 

To be sure, it is disappointing as well as frustrating to have to reformat a planned battle report into a simple scenario. It has the unpleasant aroma of failure. Then again, I think it is preferable to salvage something as opposed to present nothing to readers who might have an interest in this particular period of military history. If, at some future point, I decide to return to Murten and or the campaigns of Charles the Bold, then I will have at least some kind of foundation to build upon, so I won’t have to “reinvent the wheel” as they say. I won’t have to start by staring at a completely blank page, which can, more often than not, be more intimidating that facing an advancing formation of Swiss pikemen and halberdiers.