Hi. Just read WOTR2 post. Pity no pictures as i'd love to see some so is there anyone out there who'd like to post some.
The reason? I saw the programme re finding Richard III's body which has got me interested. Got some plastic Perry's - not painted yet! - but would love to see some 10mm armies.
I enjoyed the prog. so much that I've just sent of my membership application for the Richard III Society!
Best wishes DaveL
Hi Dave
Some WOTR pics in 10mm - nice range so you can do most troop types
http://s1213.photobucket.com/user/BernardGanley/library/For%20Lords%20Tomorrow%20is%20a%20Busy%20Day
Cheers
Bernie
These look good Bernie 8).
And if there's a dud figure, you can use it as Dicky himself.
Hi
I still can`t make my mind up my mind up on Richard the third.
Thing is the Richard the third soc won`t hear a bad word said against him.
They said the Tudors made it up about him having a dodgy back, er hello he did .
He was a really nice guy to his supporters but so was Hitler.
He didn`t kill the prince`s in the tower, they were classed as bastards because of their woodville connections so they had to go.
He executed one of the yorkist cause`s most loyal supporters (Hastings) for nowt.
So in the end he was a top bloke but then in 1483 he turned a bit nasty when he thought a third rate family were going to get there hands on the throne (woodvilles again).
He was no different to any other plantagenet but the sun certainly didn`t shine out of his medieval ass.
Jim
Hi Jim,
I sympathise. I'm willing to buy him as an effective monarch - his problem is that he wasn't born to be one. The hunchback is an amusing indication of the way in which people can change their perspectives. As you say, Richard's supporters always claimed this was an evil calumny against Richard perpetrated by later Tudors, and that the portrait showing it had been modified at a later date. And yet when a body is found showing the disease that caused this, they claim this as evidence that the body is Richard's ?... :o :o :-\. I think the following are reasonable causes of doubt regarding his sainthood:
I) he is betrayed in favour of a usurper with no credible claim by his closest allies;
II) it was already rumoured that the Princes were dead before Richard lost Bosworth;
Iii) people seem to have believed him capable of evil deeds to the extent that he had to make a public statement denying he had murdered his wife in order to marry his niece. A strange thing for a beloved king to have to do?
Anyway, we'll probably never know, and it least it stimulates interest in a fascinating period.
Mollinary
Hi
I`m totally indifferent to good or bad richard.
He was a normal medieval king as far as I`m concerned.
Why isn`t there a Henry VIII society (or is there) to try a bit spin on his reputation.
Jim
Hi (again)
I have a large yorkist army but I`m crap at taking digital photo`s and downloading them.
I do recommend the pendraken range though,
Jim
Hi Jim,
This is a period which has always fascinated me, but I've never taken the plunge! Maybe I should look at the Realtime Wargames Rules for the period? Cue Bernie?
Mollinary
Hi
WOTR fascinating period and the arguement of "good" "bad" kings the stuff of the classroom and lecture theatre. "Fast Eddie" Edward IV while a hard b****** in every sense of the word only got really nasty when 1) His Dad, Richard Duke of York, and one of his brothers executed after battle of Wakefield 2) any lord no matter who they had previously supported had sworn allegiance then later broke that bond.
As far as I could see all the rest were all equally as bad - Henry VI, Queen Margaret, every Somerset, Neville clan, Richard III etc etc. Of course the winners write the history and for true appalling behaviour it takes a lot to beat the Tudors as Henry VII executed with gay abandon perceived enemies and lots of friends over his entire reign. My introduction to all this was not a history book but a novel, the splendid "Daughter of Tme" by Josephine Tey from the 1950's (shows how old I am). In this a detective hospitalized after a fall is given some pictures to look at by his girlfriend - one of whom is Richard III the child murderer - but is intrigued as from his instinct as a copper the face does not look like a criminal. From his bed he then gets others to investigate Richard. I think even now it would make a brilliant film and an excellent introduction into the problem of sources and "good/bad" kings. While not a plug available cheaply from Amazon and no doubt Abe books!
Well onto the wargaming a la Molinary. Martyn Chapman who wrote "For Lords To-morrow is a busy Day" for Realistic Modelling wanted a set of fast (I mean fast at Tunbridge Wells wargame show a few years back we fought 6 battles in the day - each one different) rules that emphasised options for commanders (via battle deployment cards) and variability (all units are diced for their quality after deployment) and as armies deployed within bow range of each other no need for tape measures - only intention to move or stand. The bow fire is deadly - but as both sides have bow (unless you are unlucky enough to deploy Irish or Landsknechts) largely cancels each other out and it is melee that decides the issue in a bloody but decisive way. There is also death of leaders, treason etc as well as the fun! bits at the end to see if your lord gets away or not! I added a non-map campaign system to link it all together.
Well enough plugs - get painting and if only buy one thing (no not our rules) then get "Daughter of Time"!
Welcome to the never ending problem of who fought where, standards and banners and livery colours! I personally love this period and like to imagine todays English football teams lining up in a massive field say Greater Manchester vs Yorkshire.E.g Manchester Utd in the centre under Sir Ferguson, Man City on the left under a mercenary commander and Oldham on the right. Loyal supporters swelling the ranks with part time supporters at the rear. ;D Seriously though ive got 6mm for Poleaxed 2 a good ruleset uses average dice for movement and archers dont miss which appealed to me i mean how could they have not inflicted casualties on a huge mob bearing down on them!
Poleaxed was originally written by an old mate of mine and tended to be fast and bloody. We used it for a demo game of second St Albans in the mid eighties (St Albans being a stone's throw, or easy longbow shot, from here) and I believe became the "official" ruleset of the Lance and Longbow Society.
Incidentally, said society would be a very good starting point for anyone wishing to wargame the late medieval period.
http://lanceandlongbow.com/ (http://lanceandlongbow.com/)
Hi Dave I have a few units from the wars of the roses its a long project :P you can see them on my blog...I also tried a conversion Richards brave but ill fated charge at Bosworth also on the blog, hope you like them , I love the period, and enjoyed the tv show too.
All the beat
Sean
Hi Sean
Just looked at your blog link. Thanks very much. Great to view and much to learn re livery, etc
Much appreciated DaveL
Well there's a turn up for the books. The BBC is dramatising The White Queen this summer so set your recorders,
I have to agree with Jim Ando earlier, that Kings around this time are all basically the same. After all they totally depended upon the fear/loyalty of their followers and if they lost that they were finished. Any potential rival had to be crushed, failing to do that was just asking for future strife.Today their methods may seem extreme but at the time it was expected.
Good king / Bad king what did he do for the country that is what counts. A long and bloody civil war. . . . ?
He is said to have introduced the bail system into English law, by which, for a payment, a person charged with a crime could be released until his trial.
So that means people with wealth could go free until trial which at the time could be many months. i bet non of the lower people of England ever got bail unless their master cleared it first.
"Good king / Bad king what did he do for the country that is what counts. A long and bloody civil war. . . . ? "
Richard III was born in 1452 and the first battle of the Wars of the Roses was in 1455 (excluding some of the inter-baronial feuding), so blaming him for the entire 30 years of conflict is a bit much!
" i bet non of the lower people of England ever got bail unless their master cleared it first."
Richard III did not introduce bail, it existed in some form from at least the Norman period, and was in fact available to all ranks of society, although it was not available in cases of murder. The Statute of Westminster (1275) limited the discretion of sheriffs with respect to granting bail. What Richard III's 1484 parliament did do was make bail easier to obtain by allowing JPs to grant bail, rather than just the county sheriffs. The Act also stated that an arrested person's goods could not be seized until they had been actually convicted of their crime.
Once you start looking at medieval records such as coroners, assize and manorial courts you realize that, despite what more socialist-orientated historians might say, even the commoners had quite a few rights under law. It wasn't all based on a Monty Python and the Holy Grail system of justice.