Could somebody point me in the direction of some photos of the Landsknecht range?
Many thanks in advance.
The guys with feathers on their hats in this pike block on LAN codes, there are two one in a mail shirt and a type of fez, the other in more typical slashed clothing
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-_wSZfWiB4Oc/UwntodHTm0I/AAAAAAAACWQ/Yn3-D8D7CoM/s800/IMG_3587.jpg)
The left hand two guns are LAN codes
(http://www.kerynne.com/games/images/WMDoW/GalloperGuns.JPG)
the gunner with his back to the camera is LAN, and the guy holding the rocket started out as LAN haldberdier (the organ gun might be a LAN one two too (nearly left that one to give FK a fit!)
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-twnxZZ8FOw8/USvXQKW3ibI/AAAAAAAABvc/nAf6QTTW0kg/s1024/IMG_0218.jpg)
I have the two handed swordsmen too - but can't find a photo it is a single pose, slightly crouched
Don't be afraid to try some of the other pike figures as well, especially those in the Flodden range. The gunners in the Flodden range also have very noticeable very early Tudor clothing so will also make great Italians, Spanish and French.
Are the Flodden figures the ER codes?
If so I think the front rank of my pikes are those figures, along with a sprinkling of EL pikes (in morions) - mine are meant to be fantasy figures, hence the mix of styles to match GW empire.
The Flodden figures are indeed the ER codes (Early Renaissance). I don't like the arquebusier figure though as he looks post 1530 to me.
http://s1213.photobucket.com/user/BernardGanley/media/For%20Lords%20Tomorrow%20is%20a%20Busy%20Day/04aLandsknechts.jpg.html
Couple of pike blocks for later Wars of the Roses
Thank-you. I'll consider buying some now that I see they don't appear to be too hard to paint. At my age and with deteriorating eyesight you have to think of this sort of thing! Thank the gods for khaki I say!
I have definitely got to do me a rocket battery. Just had a crack at converting a MM and a Pendraken Late Medieval Knight into a plumed and skirted gendarme. Will post a photo when painted up. Might encourage Nik to reconsider the Italian Wars.
Quote from: Dour Puritan on 19 September 2014, 09:36:07 AM
Might encourage Nik to reconsider the Italian Wars.
It's possible..although I have got *serious* other distractions at the moment, including two lovely packages which landed safely from Pendraken HQ yesterday 8)
You're being very coy about your packages.
Quote from: Dour Puritan on 26 September 2014, 04:11:39 PM
You're being very coy about your packages.
I'm good at playing hard-to-get
Is there any intention to expand the range? I wouldn't mind doing landsknechts one day, but single-pose packs are pretty offputting.
Quote from: MattW on 16 October 2014, 11:15:03 PM
Is there any intention to expand the range? I wouldn't mind doing landsknechts one day, but single-pose packs are pretty offputting.
It's something we've chatted about in the past, but there's so much on the design schedule at the moment that it wouldn't be happening in the near future I'm afraid.
Ummm .. may I speak for the silent, or not so silent, majority ... or possibly a minority .. OK just for me?
I like single pose packs. Especially for anything from say mid 1600's to about 1900 (except the ACW where they were all a rabble anyway). Single poses make a unit look disciplined and efficient. Multiple poses packs may be more "realistic" but ... meh!
What used to irk me about Airfix was that you would buy a pack of 48 figures, and from it, once you'd weeded out all those extra Sten carriers, stretcher bearers, casualties and the incredible amount of support weapons, you'd barely enough for a proper half platoon. Since everyone uses a different rule set the proportions of officers to rankers, of muskets to pike, of kneeling >:( to standing will vary.
Even you, great Dark Lord, will not be able to satisfy the undisciplined wishes of we (the dead flies on the Pendraken Bug Zapper 2000) unless ... you give up selling packs and just sell figures individually. <ducks to avoid incoming boot>
I must say when I model regular troops, I like the look of a fairly uniform pose. Small variations in dress within a pose - feathered hats/helmets/bonnets, slashed hose/tights/cuisses etc. - are fun in relevant periods, however.
I still wake up screaming at the memory of those Airfix packs. Though they went quite well with the Grant/Featherstone rules of those days, mind you.
We knew nothing better in those days, and, ironically, the wheel seems to have come full circle and multi-pose stands are the preferred option - for anything after 1900, at any rate.
You'll never persuade me that I was alone in thinking there was room for improvement!
I actually sort of agree with FSN. I don't mind limited poses on WSS, SYW and Naps. However ancients, dark ages, medieval I want as many poses as possible and to be honest the pendraken ranges are pretty good in that sense. The Normans I've just painted had 8 different poses to 13 models on a base (10 if its a command base). I've just started putting ancient Spanish forces and Republican Romans together (my compliments Phil). The Spanish will again have 8 to 10 different poses the Romans 4 or 5 but I like animated bases and mixing troop types. At the end of the day an ancient Spanish army wouldn't have all the chainmail armoured guys in one group all the ones with just a shield in another they'd all be mixed up.
Could do with more cavalry poses though maybe 2 to a pack rather than 1- can can horses aren't a great look.
I think most of the Landsknecht are two pose packs aren't they? For "real" regulars I think that's about enough, same pose in slight variation, for stuff like horse & musket I'm actually happy with them split out as packs eg one port arms, one march attack etc like the WSS range. I'd still *prefer* multi pose packs (e.g. three different march attack guys as unless on parade ground and recently equipped I like a bit more "humanness" in my units :D
For something like Landsknechts I'd much, much prefer at least three poses! The other similar era pike are excellent for that - I've used about three-four different pack codes to get as much variation as possible so it looks like the typical pictures from the period - lots of exciting hats, poses, jerkins, hose/boots/bare legs/pantaloons etc, all in slightly different poses. Really looks animated and dashing :)
As an example, I'm very impressed with the recent Warmonger great swords (and pike) - thirty figures in a pack, all effectively individual, all with the same look and feel, looks like a spot ona ctual body of men all individuals united in one unit.
On the Airfix - they're hard work. It seems someone at Airfix decided "bloke with rifle who isn't tap dancing or singing" was too much to ask for. They have to be "stabbing with bayonet whilst demonstrating the rumba" or "one of thirteen identical NCO's with SMG and itching powder down underpants" :D
Quote from: Matt of Munslow on 17 October 2014, 11:00:08 AM
I actually sort of agree with FSN.
This is not really the best thing to admit too, along the lines of admitting you like wearing your wifes underwear and high heels! :), Or that you try and look up womens skirts on escalators :d
Quote from: Just a few Orcs on 17 October 2014, 04:04:06 PM
Or that you try and look up womens skirts on escalators :d
What....... you mean I shouldnt :-[... however we have no escalators on Shetland....so I can't..
Anyway back to the point. If troops are irregulars then I do like a bit of variety in the poses. The sudan figures I have been doing of late have enough poses to make a rabble. Camels have fewer poses cavalry 2 poses if you ignore the armoured type. The British have 2 poses which work for me the way I base them. I would have liked to see more combat style poses for the camel corps but that is personal preference.
My preference is for multi pose packs. They have the advantage that you can do more animated bases, which I like. AND you can do single pose bases, because you can always ask that nice mister Leon for 'Just the Grenadier in greatcoat twirling his moustache lefthanded, please', because he's loopy enough to do it, too. But with a single pose in a pack, how are you going to get a bit of variation? Only by mixing packs, and that can be tricky.
Horses are a problem for me. They don't walk in step, and I don't like all horses in the same pose ... but I do want them all standing, walking or trotting. I think pre-1900 it's a discipline thing. Were I to field a 1793 French army, I'd probably mix 1/3 nice, uniform poses to 2/3 scraggy herberts. Imperial Rome I'd like uniformity, Gauls - as many poses as you like.
Airfix US Marines: something - like flamethrower, bazooka, standing firing, kneeling >:( firing, pistol, dingy and 30 chaps running around without any weapons at all. Oh and the bloke with his rifle above his head either because
a) he'd finished wading ashore, but forgot to lower his rifle
b) he was surrendering
c) he'd fallen foul of Sarge and was on punishment detail.
By the way, I like wearing your wife's underwear.
As several have said it is very much a question of the type of unit you are trying to represent.
I've just sorted 6 stands of AWI Militia, 16 figures per stand, by mixing three different packs I can get almost all the figures different (only 2 pairs of duplicates per stand) which works for Militia 8-} ;)
I'm equally happy with 2-3 poses for the Continentals :)
Horses really benefit from more than 2 poses as they don't march in step.
But as FSN suggests it is about the poses working together, which is the major problem with the good old Airfix packs
To be fair, with things like the landsknechts, all you need to really change the heads for pikemen, and maybe heads and halberd tips for the halberdiers. Crossbows and handguns could do with a couple of different poses firing/loading though.
Ah! There we may disagree. I dislike any firing pose pre 1939 - especially kneeling >:( firing.
If you take the Napoleonic Wars, musketry fire was opened at say 100 yards. The amount of time spent firing was very small - spent more time reloading! I hate the sight of a column of infantry, each one carefully aiming it the neck (or buttocks >:() of the man in front.
Fankyouverymuch - FSN
Maybe that's why everyone was so small in the past FSN, that way they could miss each other...
By the way, welcome Mr W, to the Forum.
All other forums and/or fora are but pale imitations of this one. If this Forum was being Sean Connery playing James Bond, all other forums/fora are at best Timothy Dalton, and the general quality is more Roger Moore. (This being on the internationally accepted Fleming Scale of Connery, Brosnan, Niven, Dalton, Lazenby, Moore, Woodentop.)
Laters - FSN
Quote from: mad lemmey on 18 October 2014, 07:35:52 AM
Maybe that's why everyone was so small in the past FSN, that way they could miss each other...
When I read this I was like :-\, and then I was like ;D, but then youknow I was >:( but then I said to myself "don't be so uptight" so I was like ??? but now I've had a fink about it and I'm like :-/ but then mysong came on and I'm like :D. Coooool.
Now wash your hands - FSN
You missed: :'( :-t ~X( 8-} :Ph
If I got as many landsknect poses as there's emoticons there I'd be delirious :D :-*
Quote from: fsn on 18 October 2014, 07:43:42 AM
By the way, welcome Mr W, to the Forum.
All other forums and/or fora are but pale imitations of this one. If this Forum was being Sean Connery playing James Bond, all other forums/fora are at best Timothy Dalton, and the general quality is more Roger Moore. (This being on the internationally accepted Fleming Scale of Connery, Brosnan, Niven, Dalton, Lazenby, Moore, Woodentop.)
I thought Lazenby
was woodentop.
Work colleague of mine nearly wore her DVD out watching Woodentop come out the sea in his trunks!
Fankyouverymuch – FSN
Laters – FSN
Now wash your hands - FSN
FSN are you trying on some new tag lines now that Techo has reclaimed his "Cheers" ;)
Maybe .... :-[
Yours sincerely,
FSN
PS The one I like best so far is "I quite like wearing your wife's underwear".
Quote from: fsn on 18 October 2014, 07:03:54 PM
Maybe .... :-[
Yours sincerely,
FSN
PS The one I like best so far is "I quite like wearing your wife's underwear".
"Yours sincerely," seems a little formal, the other option mentioned above appears to have gone to the other extreme :o ;D
How on earth can Connery be first??? He can't act. He can only do one character and its the same one whether he's a British Spy or a Russian submarine commander!!
To be fair he does do a very convincing portrayal of Sean Connery.
For me it goes Brosnan, Craig, Niven, Moore and then Who?? Never heard of him.
This is a good forum. ;D
Thanks for the warm welcome, fsn
Quote from: fsn on 18 October 2014, 07:43:42 AM
By the way, welcome Mr W, to the Forum.
All other forums and/or fora are but pale imitations of this one. If this Forum was being Sean Connery playing James Bond, all other forums/fora are at best Timothy Dalton, and the general quality is more Roger Moore. (This being on the internationally accepted Fleming Scale of Connery, Brosnan, Niven, Dalton, Lazenby, Moore, Woodentop.)
Laters - FSN
I think Dalton would have been remembered as a first-place tie with Connery if he'd lasted longer. Not that I'd kick either of them out of bed, mind you. ;)
Quote from: Ithoriel on 18 October 2014, 09:04:04 PM
How on earth can Connery be first???
Connery is from that long line of actors who don't act: Like John Wayne, Robert Mitchum and Al Pacino. He is, however fortunate in that the role he is most associated with, James Bond, fits his screen persona perfectly. Also fits the Fleming description of the character.
Good morning to you - FSN
I'd say Pacino was one of the few American actors who could act!
Ummm ... I've only ever seen him doing shouty Italian-American. He's no Johnny Depp.
Blessings of the Dark Lord be unto you - FSN
He can handle Shakespeare too. Which remains the real test.
His Shylock was slightly less bad than Tony Curtis in the "Black Shield of Falworth", I will grant you, but there was always the underlying threat of the Jewish money-lender bringing out his "little friend".
Bore da - FSN
FSN - thought we'd agreed - NO WELSH on the forum.
IanS :'(
Quote from: fsn on 19 October 2014, 10:20:32 AM
His Shylock was slightly less bad than Tony Curtis in the "Black Shield of Falworth", I will grant you, but there was always the underlying threat of the Jewish money-lender bringing out his "little friend".
Bore da - FSN
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v234/joolz051/KennethWilliams.jpg)
Quote from: ianrs54 on 19 October 2014, 11:06:11 AM
FSN - thought we'd agreed - NO WELSH on the forum.
Sorry. I've been trying out some multi-lingual sign offs. It would only work in the morning anyway.
Catch you on the flip side - FSN
X_X
This has the potential of getting very silly. ;D ;D ;D
Cheers - Phil
... says the man with the sign off!
Zippity do da! - FSN
Quote from: Techno on 19 October 2014, 12:24:27 PM
X_X
This has the potential of getting very silly. ;D ;D ;D
Cheers - Phil
getting :o getting he says ;D ;D ;D
Fair point ! ;D ;D ;D
Now.....Who's going to tell me how to get the spell checker on the forum working again.
I like seeing all the worms un derlined 'cos I can't see my spelyng mistaykes at the moment, and it's driving me putty !
Chairs - Phyl.
Right click on the wobbly words for corrections? :-\
Quote from: Techno on 19 October 2014, 07:08:58 PM
Fair point ! ;D ;D ;D
Now.....Who's going to tell me how to get the spell checker on the forum working again.
I like seeing all the worms un derlined 'cos I can't see my spelyng mistaykes at the moment, and it's driving me putty !
Chairs - Phyl.
That would be down to your browser Phil.
In Firefox you go to Tools -> Options -> General -> Browsing -> Check my spelling as I type
There must be similar options in Chrome, Bing or Internet Explorer but I don't use them.
I think this whole thread has quite capably illustrated that some folks like single poses, some folks like lots of poses, and some folks are plain nuts. 8-}
PS, I quite like Daniel Craig as Bond, he's a much more believable thug than Brosnan ever was. But then I've never read any of the books and Connery/Moore were before my time. :D
I think Craig's a first-rate actor, but it's fish and fowl with him in the Bond tradition.
Quote from: Ithoriel on 19 October 2014, 08:12:03 PM
That would be down to your browser Phil.
In Firefox you go to Tools -> Options -> General -> Browsing -> Check my spelling as I type
There must be similar options in Chrome, Bing or Internet Explorer but I don't use them.
Thanks, I !
Cheers - Phil
Quote from: Leon on 19 October 2014, 11:56:14 PM
PS, I quite like Daniel Craig as Bond, he's a much more believable thug than Brosnan ever was. But then I've never read any of the books and Connery/Moore were before my time. :D
Far be it from me to disagree with the Dark Lord, but Craig is essentially a monotone actor. In "Degfiance", I cheered for the Nazi's; in "Cowboys and Aliens", I cheered for the aliens, and wondered, like Harrison Ford, where it had gone so wrong for Harrison Ford, and in the breakthrough "Layer Cake" I was asleep in half an hour.
Yes, Bond is a thug, but he's meant to be so much more than that. Craig has all the charisma of an oily rag.
I suggest you read the books. They're actually very good.
... and watch Connery.
All praise the Dark Lord - FSN
This gets into the Ten Worst-Hijacked Posts.
For me Brosnan had a believable mix of physicality and charm, hence my top Bond.
I thought Craig was good in Defiance, myself, depends what you were expecting I suppose. I liked Layer Cake, no Lock Stock to be sure but very watchable.
Cowboys and Aliens had a good cast, good director, good crew .... how did they manage to make such a dire film??? Only saving grace was Olivia Wilde as the obligatory eye-candy. Perhaps less cash on CGI and more on screenwriters might have helped?
I'm sure Craig would do well as a Landsknecht in a film set in the appropriate era .... err, back on track? :)
Quote from: fsn on 20 October 2014, 07:18:38 AM
...and in the breakthrough "Layer Cake" I was asleep in half an hour.
In which case you missed the best bit. Sienna Miller. Yum.
If you fancy a good film about landsknectes then Rutger Hauer is ace in "Flesh & Blood"!
Some fascinating totty in that as well.
Quote from: Dour Puritan on 23 October 2014, 02:52:08 PM
Some fascinating totty in that as well
Yes. Yes indeed 8)
In a vague attempt to bring the topic back to the Rennaissance, some of my old 15mm figures
(http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa242/danandsan/Pic029.jpg) (http://s198.photobucket.com/user/danandsan/media/Pic029.jpg.html)
(http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa242/danandsan/PapalGendarmesandmercenarypikes.jpg) (http://s198.photobucket.com/user/danandsan/media/PapalGendarmesandmercenarypikes.jpg.html)
Love the da Vinci tank!
Nice army, the cross big keys are Vatican /papal states, isnt it?
Splendid stuff, Dan !
Cheers - Phil.
Very nice indeed
Take care
Andy
Dat tent - what are de old Black and Tans doin' here, den?
QuoteDat tent - what are de old Black and Tans doin' here, den?
Looking a bit chipper?
Quotethe cross big keys are Vatican /papal states, isnt it?
Yes indeed it is, if you look in the background you can just see a heretic being brought back to the true faith. :D
QuoteLove the da Vinci tank!
Thanks, I got a bit carried away making these
(http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa242/danandsan/Pic046.jpg) (http://s198.photobucket.com/user/danandsan/media/Pic046.jpg.html)
You still got the 28mm version?
A lot of Jacobite figures there, Dan? My 15mm Italian Wars collection is very varied. Began by buying an army from the sculptor himself, Aly Morrison. The wee, chunky Mike's Models, however, didn't mix well with all the other 15mm that were subsequently released.
Great fun !!
Cheers - Phil
My old Mike's Models armies had to go to be replaced by Jacobite, Venexia and Mirliton, with a bit of Essex and Freikorps 15 thrown in as well. Don't have a Da Vinci tanl ot that type but do have a fully armed landship with sails.
MiniFigs also produced a very nice Swiss pikemen.
Mike's Models, now there's a name to conjure with. They were, as Michael says, chunky little fellows and the cavalry rode what appeared to be St Bernard dogs. They did, however, have a lot of character. :)
Paul Daniels is another name to conjure with.
And now, the lovely Debbie Maggee!
That's magic!
And so is the wash, apparently.
You'll like it! Not a lot...
The 15mm jacobite stuff has recently started to be re-released, Saw it at a show, but cannot remember the new company name
Also Essex have brought the "Mikes Models" rennaisance range back into production.
I picked up a couple of lots of "Mikes Models" on ebay a couple of years ago - so now have 300 or so to paint.
Quote from: Just a few Orcs on 06 November 2014, 10:30:50 AM
The 15mm jacobite stuff has recently started to be re-released, Saw it at a show, but cannot remember the new company name
Also Essex have brought the "Mikes Models" rennaisance range back into production.
I picked up a couple of lots of "Mikes Models" on ebay a couple of years ago - so now have 300 or so to paint.
Polly Oliver?
I really liked the 15mm Jacobite stuff, lots of character and a very good range of renaissance figures.
I've now sold all my 15mm ancients in favour of 10mm but just can't part with the rennaisance.
Incidentally what do most people think of when the say renaissance? I mentally define it as about 1350 to 1550 and the wars in Europe, especially Italy, but ending arround the Spanish/Dutch wars at a push I'd go to 1600 in Britain as it was a military back water.
This view is probably more based on the developments in art and architecture than military conflicts.
I'd tend to push it a bit further up the scale from 1494, when Charles VIII of France invaded Naples, through to 1683, the Relief of Vienna.
Quote from: DanJ on 07 November 2014, 09:22:38 AM
This view is probably more based on the developments in art and architecture than military conflicts.
I always found that my Italian Wars armies struggled against the later 16th-Century armies.
Quote from: Hertsblue on 05 November 2014, 05:47:23 PM
Mike's Models, now there's a name to conjure with. They were, as Michael says, chunky little fellows and the cavalry rode what appeared to be St Bernard dogs. They did, however, have a lot of character. :)
Aly had to follow Mike's style for the Mike's Models range. However, he was also a big fan of Bill Lamming at the time who also sculpted in a chunky style.
According to Professor Stephen Pumphrey at Lancaster University, with whom I did two units of Enlightenment History whilst at Lancaster:
1485 - 1688 in the UK. However it is a sliding date, some areas were earlier (Italy, France, areas of Germany) some later (Spain, Scandinavia, the UK) and some slipped backwards (France).
Quote from: mad lemmey on 07 November 2014, 06:59:23 PM
I did two units of Enlightenment History whilst at Lancaster:
1485 - 1688
Hmmm You are much older than I imagined
and at uni for an awful long time :-\
Perhaps he means 1st April 1985 to 1st June 1988.
About 3 years.
;D
'Twas a long course, we studied the Enlightenment in real time.
Professor Pumphrey is still there too!
Quote from: Matt of Munslow on 07 November 2014, 07:50:12 PM
and at uni for an awful long time :-\
Are any of us surprised by this ;D
AArrrgggh!!!!
Quote from: DanJ on 07 November 2014, 09:22:38 AM
Incidentally what do most people think of when the say renaissance?
Could we not open this can of worms!!! Back in the day we had robust discussions when I was setting up a replacement discussion group, on what to call the period and what period it covered. It led to the replacement discussion group to be called REMPAS - ie
Renaissance,
Early
Modern,
Pike
and
Shot so that everybody could feel included ~X( ~X( ~X(
Cheers
GrumpyOldMan
A cultural movement, not a period of military history. But I suppose it's no sillier that "ancients" (a blanket term covering the overwhelming majority of human society, and frequently stretched to cover medievals), "colonials" (which assumes that nothing was colonised before the Victorians, or by anyone of non-European origins), "fantasy" (which is somehow distinguished from "sci-fi", I'm told, but sure as Hell not by anything remotely scientific in the latter, and doesn't include fielding Ayyubids against Carthaginians - ugh!), or "moderns" (which somehow excludes wars in which people still living participated, if one believes its afficionadi).
Let's face it, semantics and this hobby have little in common. Just read anything by Phil Barker.
And that, m'lud, is the case for the prosecution.
QuoteCould we not open this can of worms!!!
That's why I asked it ;D
QuoteA cultural movement, not a period of military history
That's what I always think of, especially in Italy it ties in somewhat with the various Italian Wars which is where my main interest in Renaissance Warfare is centred.
Let me buy you a drink, sir.
Quote from: FierceKitty on 08 November 2014, 12:54:58 AM
A cultural movement, not a period of military history. But I suppose it's no sillier that "ancients" (a blanket term covering the overwhelming majority of human society, and frequently stretched to cover medievals), "colonials" (which assumes that nothing was colonised before the Victorians, or by anyone of non-European origins), "fantasy" (which is somehow distinguished from "sci-fi", I'm told, but sure as Hell not by anything remotely scientific in the latter, and doesn't include fielding Ayyubids against Carthaginians - ugh!), or "moderns" (which somehow excludes wars in which people still living participated, if one believes its afficionadi).
Let's face it, semantics and this hobby have little in common. Just read anything by Phil Barker.
And that, m'lud, is the case for the prosecution.
"Renaissance" is merely a label to obviate the need to repeat "a period of time in which medieval fortresses were rendered obsolete by artillery, firearms proliferated and eventually became the principle weapon of the infantry and the armoured horseman performed his swan-song" over and over again. As are the others.
Oh, and be warned,
reading Phil Barker promotes hair-loss - torn out in bunches. ~X( ~X( ~X(
Language is the first casualty of laziness.
I'd reply to that but it's effort. Meh.
So would I, but too much painting to do and just spent 5 minutes ranting at Ithoriel.