Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[scott holder]

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,

>This is great! I take Antigonus over Eumenes any day of the week! Oops, cra
cks are developing in the partnership:):)

Hannibal over Cato, Mithradates VI over Sulla.

>Ut oh, another divergence. I'd take Sulla over Mithradates. More on that i
n a minute.

Knowing
something about the history ... and taking sides ... adds to my
appreciation of the game.

>I love this thread because it brings up an angle that rarely gets mentioned i
n ancient/medieval wargaming discussions, that being what "personalized" attra
ctions any given army holds for the player (these attractions being something
other than, as Greg Regets mentions, how efficient a killing machine it is on
the table). As Rob Turnball mentioned, he likes Late Hebrew because of the Bi
blical connections. I originally got into the Khmer because of the topless Ma
iden Guard figures from Garrison (what can I say, fresh outta grad school wher
e much of my free time was spent in a strip bar in north Boulder). That led i
nto a whole slew of research and history of Cambodia from that period.

When I play Burgunian Ordonnance, I don't refer to my CinC as "here's my CinC"
, I specifically say "this is Charles the Bold, please don't kill him so that
the Swiss may", or something to that effect. And although I'm slamming the Co
nqistadors here, I'm looking forward to getting their allied contingent painte
d so I can run a 25mm Tlaxcallan army against Aztecs (keeping the smallpox at
home) because of the historical fascination that period holds for me.

And this seques into how one can immerse in any given period. Obviously lotsa
non-fiction helps but that certainly isn't for everyone. Case in point, Mark
Bartusis' one main book on the Byzantines. Great book for doing army lists b
ut not exactly light reading. Historical fiction is great for getting the fla
vor of a period. There's a long out of print book whose name and author escap
es me that's all about Demetrius (it's based on Plutarch's Lives) which is one
reason I play Antigonus (his father). Plus there's something fascinating abo
ut this low level satrap who is mentioned very little during Alexander's life
and yet rose to great power afterward.

And this week the next in what is arguably one of the best sets of novels will
be released. It's Colleen McCollough's next book on the end of the Roman Rep
ublic. Sandra (wife) and I are taking an interesting approach on this one. S
he is currently reading Margeret George's Memoirs of Cleopatra, which covers t
he same period as McCollough's upcoming book. I'll read that while Sandra rea
ds hers, then we'll swap. This is one reason I'd play Sulla, McCollough does
a great job with his character. He's certainly no saint but is wonderfully co
mplex.

Someone mentioned Richard III last week. For a GREAT historical novel that co
vers the WOTR and the rise of the evil Tudors, read Sharon Kay Penman's The Su
nne in Splendour. It'll make you a big believer in Richard III and discover t

 hat Shakespeare was nothing more than a Tudor propagandist:):)

Since we've talked about Aztecs, read Aztec by Gary Jennings. Great piece of
historical fiction and you'll learn all about the Mesoamerican political situa
tion at the time of the Conquest. For two great non-fiction works, go to Ross
Hassig's books (one's on Aztecs proper, the other is a review of all the Meso
american "kingdoms").

Scott
Book Ho

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Scott Holder wrote:
"Someone mentioned Richard III last week. For a GREAT historical novel that co
vers the WOTR and the rise of the evil Tudors, read Sharon Kay Penman's The Su
nne in Splendour. It'll make you a big believer in Richard III and discover t
hat Shakespeare was nothing more than a Tudor propagandist:)"

***I would also like to mention that there is actually a "Richard the III
Society" in England that very loyally defends him and his reign. Very
interesting people, the British!

Kelly

Richard III Society HO




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

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

Scott Holder wrote:
"Someone mentioned Richard III last week. For a GREAT historical novel
that co
vers the WOTR and the rise of the evil Tudors, read Sharon Kay Penman's The
Su
nne in Splendour. It'll make you a big believer in Richard III and discover
t
hat Shakespeare was nothing more than a Tudor propagandist:)"

***I would also like to mention that there is actually a "Richard the III
Society" in England that very loyally defends him and his reign. Very
interesting people, the British!

Kelly
Richard III Society HO

Shakespeare was a Tudor propagandist!
And yes, we English do like our much maligned underdogs as the turnout for
the 500th anniversary of Bosworth proved in 1985. Scott was right in the
influences that cause you to support certain armies; not suprisingly I have
a Yorkist WOTR army, had a White Rose buttonhole at my wedding and type this
with a large portrait of Richard, Duke of Gloucester above the computer.
Loyaulte me lie
Paul


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

[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 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

I agree too.

Teutonic knights suits my style of play, but what I tell my opponents
is completely different:

If I win, then that's just plain old good boost to my ego (apparently
i have one!!!)

If I lose, then its a case of "So you killed them. So what! These
Teutonic bastards don't deserve to die: THEY DESERVE TO BE ROASTED
ALIVE IN THEIR ARMOUR!!!!"

Long live the pagans!!! (if not in this life, then the next, or
perhaps the one after that, or maybe...)


You need an army you can live with AND die with :)



--- In WarriorRules@y..., JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 11/22/2002 20:48:46 Central Standard Time,
> scribblerjohn@a... 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]