Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

That's interesting, I have vaguely wondered if any other wargamers
allow this sort of consideration to have an effect on their choice of
armies. I recently gave up on my Assyrians and sold off the ones I
had paainted (which I NEVER do) mainly because I could not feel an
iota of sympathey for them. They seem from the background reading I
was doing, to have been ruthless, vicious bastards without any saving
graces. (And yes I HAD bought the figures before I started the
research - who doesn't?) Is this very much a minority attitude or is
it more common?

Adam

> Heh heh, Bill and I had a conversation along these lines at FI. He
stated tha
> t he wouldn't be playing a 1st Crusade army next year because they
were genera
> lly bastards who had no qualms conducting pogroms against Jews
(although that
> would be worse in successive Crusades), massacring civilians
indiscriminately
> during campaigns among their "highlights". I'd argue the New World
Spanish ma
> de the Crusaders look like junior high school bullies by
comparison. Oops, t
> his is sounding like a politically correct rant, it's not meant to
be. Just a
> stream of conciousness thought on the history behind the armies.
>

I refuse to paint WWII, because I wish to be either a Nazi or a Commie. This
does not stop me from playing if someone else puts on the game, though.
I painted Romans a long time ago, but after reading Livy, I could not stand that
pompous SOB, and haven't touched Romans since. McCullough's Roman novels were
even more off-putting.
I somehow find it easier to excuse real SOB's if they are a few hundred or more
years old. Just make a list of history's pricks: 100 Years War English,
Vikings, Assyrians, Romans, Spartans, Turks, Spanish in Holland, Spanish in the
New World, the list goes on. And yet to some they are the good guys. Richard
III anyone?
I am doing Sea Peoples precisely because they toppled civilisations. I kind of
like that. As for the Assyrians, they were just more honest in their
propaganda. They were misunderstood. It was society's fault. (Hint. I am now
painting Assyrians too.)

John the OFM





"Adam" <adster68@...> wrote:

>That's interesting, I have vaguely wondered if any other wargamers
>allow this sort of consideration to have an effect on their choice of
>armies. I  recently gave up on my Assyrians and sold off the ones I
>had paainted (which I NEVER do) mainly because I could not feel an
>iota of sympathey for them. They seem from the background reading I
>was doing, to have been ruthless, vicious bastards without any saving
>graces. (And yes I HAD bought the figures before I started the
>research - who doesn't?) Is this very much a minority attitude or is
>it more common?
>
>Adam
>
>> Heh heh, Bill and I had a conversation along these lines at FI.  He
>stated tha
>> t he wouldn't be playing a 1st Crusade army next year because they
>were genera
>> lly bastards who had no qualms conducting pogroms against Jews
>(although that
>> would be worse in successive Crusades), massacring civilians
>indiscriminately
>> during campaigns among their "highlights".  I'd argue the New World
>Spanish ma
>> de the Crusaders look like junior high school bullies by
>comparison.   Oops, t
>> his is sounding like a politically correct rant, it's not meant to
>be.  Just a
>>  stream of conciousness thought on the history behind the armies.
>>
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

[joncleaves]

Well, there now, you went and did it and asked for opinions on an egroup - be
careful what you wish for...

I find the idea of not painting an army because of PC to be very silly. But
then the whole idea of PC is one of the great tragedies of the human experience.

And that idea also leaves me wondering what army *would* one be able to paint???

C'mon. I agree with Jon on this one...when has war ever been a pc venture
anyway? The most effective military establishments were also many times the
most brutal. And when you are talking about the period in history that we
are, human life was not given much value, it was common to think that you
and those like you were superior to everyone else (based upon race,
religion, creed - you name it), and Might DID make Right as far as everyone
was concerned (on either side of any conflict). Sacking cities and killing
or enslaving all of the inhabitants was common practice up until the end of
the middle ages.

The concept that all PEOPLE were created equal is a very, very new concept
in the framework of the human experience.
-----Original Message-----
From: JonCleaves@... [mailto:JonCleaves@...]
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 12:51 PM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re: Generally Bastards


Well, there now, you went and did it and asked for opinions on an egroup -
be careful what you wish for...

I find the idea of not painting an army because of PC to be very silly.
But then the whole idea of PC is one of the great tragedies of the human
experience.

And that idea also leaves me wondering what army *would* one be able to
paint???

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT




To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[scott holder]

They seem from the background reading I
was doing, to have been ruthless, vicious bastards without any saving
graces. (And yes I HAD bought the figures before I started the
research - who doesn't?) Is this very much a minority attitude or is
it more common?

>I'm guessing it's a minority viewpoint. High power tourney players ain't gon
na care. Moreover, many players don't have the in-depth material handy to sim
ply bone up on the historical (un)niceties of a list they might be playing. A
nd, if you dig hard enough, you'll find plenty of dirt for just about all 276
armies found in Warrior.

>I like to acknowledge the atrocities committed by an army I might be playing
but it doesn't stop me from playing any of them. Since our period is so, heh
heh, ancient, few sensibilities are gonna be offended by army choice. Oops, t
he Serbs are still pissed off at things which happened 600 years ago so remind
me not to play an Ottoman Turk army at the next Warrior tournament held in Sa
rajevo.

scott

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 11/22/2002 3:25:10 PM Eastern Standard Time,
Scott.Holder@... writes:

> And, if you dig hard enough, you'll find plenty of dirt for
> just about all 276 armies found in Warrior.>>

and no army, of any time period, including our own in which i serve, is free of
'dirt'...

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 11/22/2002 20:48:46 Central Standard Time,
scribblerjohn@... writes:

> Not playing an army from a
> personally repugnant culture is no more nonsensical than refusing to
> play an army because you don't like Irr D LMI, B. Choosing to ignore
> that kind of concern is also valid.
>

I so agree. My issue would be to wonder at someone who would otherwise love
to play a certain army, but denies himself based on PC perceptions of it.
That would be weird.

I have yet to see a better method for picking an army than one that 'suits'
the player.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 11/23/2002 00:08:23 Central Standard Time,
lowclan@... writes:

> Using the "PC" label
> trivializes the reaction,

I meant to trivialize the reaction. :)

<< as well as being inaccurate.>>

I find the idea of not playing a miniatures army, that one would otherwise
love to play (key point there), just to make a statement about what their
real life counterparts may have done the very definition of politically
correct behavior. But that's just me. :)

One need not argue>
> that any army is "pure" to justify a sense of repugnance for those who
> perpetrated some of the more vicious atrocities in history.
>

I find the actual SS repugnant. I own lead representations of the 9th SS
Panzer division. They are entirely unrelated, from a repugnance viewpoint.





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I find both arguments worthy.

I think Adam was saying he won't play Assyrians himself. I didn't see
him condemning anyone else for doing so. Not playing an army from a
personally repugnant culture is no more nonsensical than refusing to
play an army because you don't like Irr D LMI, B. Choosing to ignore
that kind of concern is also valid.

I know Colonial gamers deal with this kind of issue as a matter of
course.

John Meunier




--- In WarriorRules@y..., JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 11/22/2002 3:25:10 PM Eastern Standard Time,
Scott.Holder@f... writes:
>
> > And, if you dig hard enough, you'll find plenty of dirt for
> > just about all 276 armies found in Warrior.>>
>
> and no army, of any time period, including our own in which i
serve, is free of 'dirt'...

[Bill Low]

It's not a question of being "politically correct." Using the "PC" label
trivializes the reaction, as well as being inaccurate. One need not argue
that any army is "pure" to justify a sense of repugnance for those who
perpetrated some of the more vicious atrocities in history. And yes, I
have painted and do play Assyrians from time to time. It's a personal
thing ... I can pick and choose ... I just hate the 1st Crusading bastards
... I admire and play their Later grandsons. I take Eumenes over
Antigonos, Hannibal over Cato, Mithradates VI over Sulla. Knowing
something about the history ... and taking sides ... adds to my
appreciation of the game.


At 09:52 PM 11/22/2002 -0500, JonCleaves@... wrote:
> In a message dated 11/22/2002 20:48:46 Central Standard Time,
> scribblerjohn@... writes:
>
>> Not playing an army from a
>> personally repugnant culture is no more nonsensical than refusing to
>> play an army because you don't like Irr D LMI, B. Choosing to ignore
>> that kind of concern is also valid.
>>
>
> My issue would be to wonder at someone who would otherwise love
>
> That would be weird.
>
> I have yet to see a better method for picking an army than one that 'suits'
> the player.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
-----------------------------------------------------
From Harold William Low

[Bill Low]

Right. It's a personal thing. Nothing about a preachment, either way.

At 01:19 AM 11/23/2002 -0500, you wrote:
> In a message dated 11/23/2002 00:08:23 Central Standard Time,
> lowclan@... writes:
>
>>"" label
>> trivializes the reaction,
>
>
>
><<>>
>
> I find the idea of not playing a miniatures army, that one would otherwise
> love to play (key point there), just to make a statement about what their
> real life counterparts may have done the very definition of politically
>
>
> >
>>"" to justify a sense of repugnance for those who
>> perpetrated some of the more vicious atrocities in history.
>>
>
> I own lead representations of the 9th SS
> They are entirely unrelated, from a repugnance viewpoint.
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
-----------------------------------------------------
From Harold William Low

[Greg Regets]

I don't mind sleeze ball armies ... my objection is to overrated army lists.
When I play an army like this, I feel like I'm playing on a division one
football team, playing in the ivy league, then crowing about how much I'm
winning. Fortunately, most of the tournaments are all division one style armies,
so you can get all warm and fuzzy about gutting your friends. ~wink~

G


----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Low
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2002 7:15 AM
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re: Generally Bastards


Right. It's a personal thing. Nothing about a preachment, either way.

At 01:19 AM 11/23/2002 -0500, you wrote:
> In a message dated 11/23/2002 00:08:23 Central Standard Time,
> lowclan@... writes:
>
>>"" label
>> trivializes the reaction,
>
>
>
><<>>
>
> I find the idea of not playing a miniatures army, that one would otherwise
> love to play (key point there), just to make a statement about what their
> real life counterparts may have done the very definition of politically
>
>
> >
>>"" to justify a sense of repugnance for those who
>> perpetrated some of the more vicious atrocities in history.
>>
>
> I own lead representations of the 9th SS
> They are entirely unrelated, from a repugnance viewpoint.
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
-----------------------------------------------------
>From Harold William Low


To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Mark Stone]

Spend a little time in the scientific community. Scientists universally develop
enormous fascination and enthusiasm for their subject matter. Astronomers will
wax prolific about the power of a super nova, geologists will speak with great
admiration of the subtle beauty of the forces that contrive to produce an
earthquake, and doctors will appreciate the cleverness of a virus that is
difficult to eradicate.

All of this can be expressed without passing judgment on whether or not these
phenomenon are a good or a bad thing in the world, without delving into whether
these things have a good or a bad effect on mankind.

Knowledge is power, and understanding is the key to prevention.

I don't think that military historians, even amature ones, are any different.
None of us wants war. But that doesn't mean we can't study it and appreciate
what an incredible human pheonomenon it is. So certainly I think one can play
any army with great enthusiasm and a clean conscience.

Knowledge is power, and understanding is the key to prevention.


-Mark

[Kelly Wilkinson]

To take this a step further, if you find yourself unable or unwilling to play an
ancient or medieval army because of attrocities committed by that particular
group, keep in mind that your particular prejudice could be applied to any army.
For that matter, using modern Western standards and morals to judge a people
that lived under a different set of circumstances is ludicrous. True, the
Crusaders in the First Crusade much of the time acted like a "Free Company" .
This is understandable since many of their number were Normans and the like
interested in land and booty. These kind raped the Itallian countryside on their
way to their goal. But on the flip side, they were attacked, double crossed,
and even helped by the Byzantines throughout their journey. Certainly, these
were simple, rude people by todays standards. But certainly no worse than their
contemporaries. The word "byzantine" has become synonomous with dirty tricks and
underhandedness for a reason. Further, the "Saracens" were no less barbaric.
Sure Saladin upon the capture of Jerusalem was merciful, but had the city held
out and fought, it most likely would have been a different result for the city's
inhabitants. It is a fact that the Crusaders endured much deprivation and death
prior to their capture of Jerusalem. It is rare in human history when a
commander will not let his men slake their anger on the vanquished.
Now to something completely different! Scott, what happened to my beloved
Trapezetoi??????? Could someone please explain why this troop type has been
omitted from the Byzantine lists? Just curious!
Kelly




---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In a message dated 11/24/02 10:12:42 AM Pacific Standard Time,
mark@... writes:

<< Subj: [WarriorRules] Re: Generally Bastards
Date: 11/24/02 10:12:42 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: mark@... (Mark Stone)
Reply-to: <A HREF="mailto:WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com">
WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com</A>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com

Spend a little time in the scientific community. Scientists universally
develop
enormous fascination and enthusiasm for their subject matter. Astronomers
will
wax prolific about the power of a super nova, geologists will speak with
great
admiration of the subtle beauty of the forces that contrive to produce an
earthquake, and doctors will appreciate the cleverness of a virus that is
difficult to eradicate.

All of this can be expressed without passing judgment on whether or not these
phenomenon are a good or a bad thing in the world, without delving into
whether
these things have a good or a bad effect on mankind.

Knowledge is power, and understanding is the key to prevention.

I don't think that military historians, even amature ones, are any different.
None of us wants war. But that doesn't mean we can't study it and appreciate
what an incredible human pheonomenon it is. So certainly I think one can play
any army with great enthusiasm and a clean conscience.

Knowledge is power, and understanding is the key to prevention.


-Mark
>>


That's nice. But I'm still not painting any stinking Nazis.

John the OFM