Forum Replies Created

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 106 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: C18 British Light Infantry Units #154410
    Hwiccee
    Participant

    A tricky question and it depends on what exactly you are after.

    In the WSS in Spain the Spanish/Catalan allies had Miquelets – this is from 1705 to 1712. They were not raised or employed by Britain & didn’t fight in actual battles but might have operated together in sieges and skirmishes.

    In the WAS then British were often operating with the Austrians who of course had lots of Grenzers/Croats with them. But again they were not really raised/employed by Britain.

    If you don’t count the above I would say the first are in the SYW. All the Germans (Hanover, Hessse Kassel, Brunswick) that made the majority of the ‘British army’ in German had jagers and similar and they were arguably ’employed’ by Britain. In addition there was a unit called the Legion Britannique which was raised by Hanover but I think paid for directly by Britain and was kind of a light unit – it was basically rubbish so it is difficult to tell 🙂 Finally there was an ad hoc unit called Fraser’s Chasseurs which was made up of selected personnel/volunteers from the ‘Line’ units fighting in Germany. It operated in a group called Cavendish’s Chasseurs which had 1 unit of ‘jagers’ from each of the 4 main contingents in the army in Germany.

    In the SYW the first ‘proper’ British light units were raised and fought in America. After the war more were raised.

    Hwiccee
    Participant

    Great I am glad you like them 🙂

    Hwiccee
    Participant

    🙂

    Hwiccee
    Participant

    Willz: That is good. Hopefully you will be tempted to try them in a few games.

    in reply to: Two Imaginary armies – Denswe and Siarus #140777
    Hwiccee
    Participant

    What do Rerby’s Fanatics believe in? This is for Black Powder, right?

    This is for the Twilight of the Sun King rules.

    On Repet Rerby’s fanatics I suggest you look into Baccus miniatures & the views of the owner.

    In this they believe that the ‘scales of life’ have tipped in Denswe’s favour, although of course there is also a double meaning.

     

     

    in reply to: TYW Scenario Book #140164
    Hwiccee
    Participant

    Whirlwind: You will have to speed up your games. We have some more scenario books on the way 🙂

    Nathaniel: OK good. If you are interested there is already another TYW scenario book and one with ECW battles.

    Hwiccee
    Participant

    Whirlwind: Thanks for another great AAR. I will post on your blog as well 🙂

    Guy Farrish: I think it is worth pointing out that White Mountain is quite unusual in the number of light horse that were there. Most TYW have a lot less but the battles do have quite a lot of cavalry.

    Hwiccee
    Participant

    OK Guy and happy gaming. Get in touch if I can help with anything.

    Nick

    Hwiccee
    Participant

    Guy,

    Thanks for a great AAR and an interesting scenario.  I am glad you seem to enjoy the rules.

    I thought I would clear up a few points and make some suggestions.

    On the pursuit Whirlwind is correct. The breakthrough pursuit is a one-off move and then the unit can act as normal. Of course the unit will be facing the wrong way and likely to be out of command range & a long way from the action. So probably it is going to be a while before the unit can do anything else.

    On the multiple ranks of support the thing to remember is in the game it is a morale test and not a melee or whatever you are testing for. So the 2nd line gives you support, ie they are potentially helping with whatever the from rank is doing. The other ranks are just scaring the hell out of the target. The other thing to bear in mind is you will rarely get a chance to stack up that many units. It is going to be very rare in the ECW/TYW where the battles are relatively small but in the larger later post TYW battles and battles against the Ottomans. In general it tends to be used when one side is outnumbered  and in a fortified position. The other side then might assault part of the line with a deep formation to try to crack it. Basically using the extra troops they have to do this.  So you should find it will be rare in ECW/TYW games but more common in later games. But you could maybe use it for something like the storming of Bristol in the ECW.

    On the river/stream thing I would recommend using action tests for them. Remember it can take more than 1 to do something and also you can combine it with ‘Bad going’. So obviously you could have a river/stream that just takes 1 action test to cross. But also you could for example have 1 to enter the river and a second to leave. It could be 1 to enter, 1 to cross to the other side and a 3rd to leave. You could also combine this idea with ‘bad going’. For example often rivers have a marshy area on one or both sides. So that could be ‘bad going’ and the actual river an action test to cross.

    I also noticed you are interested in Marlburian battles. In case you don’t know the 1st set of rules in this series covers Marlborough’s era – it is called Twilight of the Sun King. There is also a 3rd set called Twilight of the Soldier Kings which is for SYW time. Finally you might be interested to know there is a 2nd set of TYW scenarios on the way, including some from the same kind of era your game is. It is being sent to the printer this week but there might be a delay in printing, because of the current crisis. It will have the following battles –

    Wimpfen – 6th May 1622 1
    Hochst – 20th June 1622 3
    Crossing the Lech – 15th April 1632 5
    Lützen – 16th November 1632 7
    1st Nordlingen – 6th September 1634 9
    Wittenweier – 9th August 1638 11
    Honnecourt – 26th May 1642 13
    2nd Breitenfeld – 2nd November 1642 15
    Rocroi – 19th May 1643 17
    2nd Lleida (Lérida) – 15th May 1644 19
    Freiburg – 3rd & 5th August 1644 21
    Rochetta Tanaro – 23rd September 1653 (Franco-Spanish War) 24
    Valenciennes – 16th July 1656 (Franco-Spanish War) 25
    Dunes – 14th June 1658 (Franco-Spanish War) 27
    Ameixial – 8th June 1663 (Portuguese Restoration War) 29

    I hope this helps,

    Nick

    in reply to: Twilight of Divine Right AAR – Battle of Lens #135017
    Hwiccee
    Participant

    Guy,

    You can never have enough figures 🙂

    Seriously remember that in the rules you can use any number of figures/base size as a unit. So perhaps start with ‘small’ units and build up?

    I have a secret to getting things done, I let others do it instead of me. The upcoming scenarios are by my colleague Iain Stanford, I just get the pleasure of fighting them 🙂

    in reply to: Bashkirs and Tartars in 15mm #134983
    Hwiccee
    Participant

    I look forward to seeing your blog on this.

    Yes on Wiki and it would be interesting to know what they got wrong with the Comanche. The problem with them is they often cite good sources, they cite the book you recommended, but you don’t know if they have actually used them.

    in reply to: Twilight of Divine Right AAR – Battle of Lens #134937
    Hwiccee
    Participant

    Guy: In that case I have more potentially ‘bad’ news. More Divine Right scenarios covering the period after the TYW are on the way. So get painting 🙂

    in reply to: Bashkirs and Tartars in 15mm #134936
    Hwiccee
    Participant

    They might have, and it is might, had a similar culture in the days when the Tatars were a minor tribe involved in the Mongol invasions 500 years before this. They then spent around 250 years helping to run a major empire before taking full control of their own empire which was around 250 years old around this time. During these times they were living in cities/town, building palaces/mosques and similar. By circa 1700 they were a more or less standard state, in the Ottoman mould rather than a ‘Western’ one. Any ‘horse/hunting culture’ was a distant memory as was being a ‘steppe’ people as we would usually think of it.

    With respect to the Comanches and their time/area they were maybe a big fish in a very small isolated and backward pond. I am relying on Wikipedia here which is probably wrong in the details but it is clear from that we are talking a relatively small group who were ‘powerful’ in a very isolated and underdeveloped area but insignificant by any other measure. According to Wiki they peaked in around 1840. In that year the Comanches did their ‘Great Raid’. This was circa 400 warriors fighting against the state of Texas when it was independent. They Comanches killed 41 people, burned a few small towns and stole lots of firearms, one wonders why they did this if they thought they were useless. They were then trashed by circa 200 Texans in from what I can see was the Comanches largest battle, they might have had 1000 people at that but probably a lot less actual warriors.

    In contrast, the Tatars were in decline around circa 1700. Up until the end of the war of 1699 they had been doing annual raids on the heartland of major powers like Poland and Russia. In these they often enslaved more people each year than in the whole Comanche nation. They burnt, captured, looted major cities and had the potential to destroy large well organised states. It was only in this kind of era, circa 1680, that they had declined far enough to have dropped out of being a big fish in a big pond. In 1711 the declining field army was said to be 100,000 men but was probably more like 40,000 to 50,000 – i.e. about 1000 times bigger than the Comanches at their peak.

    Maybe the Comanche did like bows rather than firearms, I couldn’t find anything on that but then I don’t have particularly good sources. Maybe that was because they thought that bows were better than firearms, although I would want to know more about the reasons why they thought this and the reality of their situation, in the circumstances they found themselves in. But that doesn’t change the fact that the vast majority of light cavalry rejected bows and switched to firearms as soon as they could. The main block on them doing that being availability of the guns themselves, but also gunpowder and other ‘logistic’ factors. This could be rationalised by ‘bows being better’. I would not be surprised if some isolated district of the Tatar area also just fielded say 500 archers, the kind of strength of the Comanche ‘army’ for the same/similar reasons as the reasons Comanches kept bows. That doesn’t mean the other 40,000 plus members of the Tatar field army didn’t favour firearms for whatever reason.

    Similarly I would guess you are right that some of the Bashkirs would have firearms and I have no idea what they were armed with in Napoleon’s time. They were, and also reportedly still are, a very persecuted group and heavily subjugated back then at least. They look to have been a lot stronger than the Comanche, they appear to be around 10,000 in 1812, but they were facing a lot stronger opposition & had lost any choice they might have on weapons, etc.

    in reply to: Twilight of Divine Right AAR – Battle of Lens #134921
    Hwiccee
    Participant

    Thanks for a great battle report.

    The good or perhaps bad news is the 2nd TYW scenario book for the Twilight of Divine Right rules will be available soon. It has 15 more scenarios 🙂

    in reply to: Bashkirs and Tartars in 15mm #134804
    Hwiccee
    Participant

    OB,

    I would be very careful going down the ‘their culture is similar’ route. Even if this was true, which it almost certainly wasn’t, a whole host of other factors are going to make such comparisons meaningless & have frequently led people down wrong paths.

    The Tatars were a power at this time, heirs to an even greater state, and the close ally of a ‘superpower’. They were a relatively rich, organised large state and had easy access to firearms, gunpowder, etc. The Bashkirs and Comanches were isolated relatively poor, relatively small groups with little resources and no significant allies. I know what I would look at to explain why the Bashkirs and Comanches (assuming they did) stuck with bows.

    I think the Tatars continued to train as mounted skirmishers right the way through but to put a date on when they switched from bows is more difficult. Going by impressions only the light horse of this part of the world started to get reasonable numbers of firearms by circa 1600 and switched by circa 1650. But of course with many exceptions.

    in reply to: Bashkirs and Tartars in 15mm #134685
    Hwiccee
    Participant

    The whole relative effectiveness of bow and firearms is a complicated issue but I think one that was basically answered around 100 years before this time.

    The Bashkirs were in almost continuous revolt at this time and barely trusted with anything dangerous when not in revolt. Also I don’t think that they are in the same kind of league as the Tatars. The Tatars were a big power in the area and had only a few years before this era raid far into Russia every year.

    I have idea on the Comanche but again I don’t think they are in the same kind of league as the Tatars. They are also, of course, a long way from the area and in a completely different set of circumstances. Any comparison is meaningless.

    I am sure that some Tatars would have bows as well. Some people were wandering around Normandy in 1944 with swords, bows and all sorts. Similar the LDF (Dad’s army) were equipped with kitchen knives on broom handles and similar. That doesn’t mean that the standard armament in WW2 wasn’t bolt action rifles, SMG, etc.

    As a general rule at this time good troops used firearms. Rubbish troops and troops from isolated areas used bows, until they could get firearms. The Tatars were a large rich power with a good army.

    in reply to: Bashkirs and Tartars in 15mm #134669
    Hwiccee
    Participant

    It wouldn’t bother me too much but Tatars at the time of the GNW are not using bow. They would be armed with pistols & carbines or similar.

    in reply to: Map for the Battle of Tippermuir #134241
    Hwiccee
    Participant

    There is a map in ‘Famous by my Sword’ by Singleton. In short the Government forces are on higher ground on a more or less open battlefield. To their right is a wooded area and to their left a village.

    in reply to: New SYW rules – Twilight of the Soldier Kings #131830
    Hwiccee
    Participant

    OK I see what you mean by medieval and depending on what scale figures you are using you may have to go ‘medieval’ to build the armies. Unfortunately this is not too much what the armies would look like then,

    The Polish hussars could still have lances but they actually really fought with swords & pistols. Lances were actually banned in the later part of the Vienna war. I think that most hussars would still have lances as a kind of status symbol but not many would actually use them in action in 1683. But it can be tricky finding Winged Hussars without lances and well they do look fantastic with lances. So all mine have lances 🙂

    For the Ottomans it was basically the same. All the good troops used sword & pistols in action and only ‘backward’ contingents from the fringes would still use lances. I used this to help identify units. All my Sipahi had lances but I cut many of them down to represent swords or pistols. For the ‘elite’ units I did this to all the figures. For the’average’ units I did it for most but left a few lances and for the few ‘raw’ units I left most with lances.

    There would be a lot of armour around if only because all the Western units would have it! Most of the ‘Eastern’ types were no longer wearing it or wore lighter versions than in the past and underneath their clothes. But again it can be difficult to get figures that look like this.

    I sort of agree on the musket thing in that the greater use of flintlocks by the Western units meant that they had probably reached parity with the Ottoman Janissaries.

    In any case keep painting and I hope to see some pictures of them at some point.

    in reply to: New SYW rules – Twilight of the Soldier Kings #131787
    Hwiccee
    Participant

    We regularly play the 1683 era but with the ‘Twilight of the Sun King’ rules, not this set. The Sun King rules cover the 9YW, GNW and WSS but also the Ottoman wars. So we use them for the war of the 1680’s & 90’s. Also the war against the Russians in 1711 and the Austrians again in 1714-18.

    I am not sure I would agree that 1683 was very much like the medieval era but I guess that depends on what you mean by that?

    You do need a set that treats the armies like the real armies and not like standard armies. This can apply to all the armies involved as some rules I have seen clearly have no idea what the ‘Western’ forces are like and their treatment of the Ottomans, Poles and other ‘Eastern’ types is often a joke. The Ottoman army in particular is tricky to get right but not particularly out of date. It is declining and so we have found the Kahlenberg battle itself a bit disappointing, the Ottomans don’t really have much chance in it.

    In any case I hope you get to play the era sometime. It is fun to do.

    in reply to: New SYW rules – Twilight of the Soldier Kings #131713
    Hwiccee
    Participant

    Nothing wrong with that period 🙂 The earlier sets do actually cover this era but different conflicts from this time are probably better done with the different sets. So most are probably best done with the Divine right set but some will be better with the Sun King set. It is the same story with the gap between the Sun King and Soldier Kings.

    Hwiccee
    Participant

    Thanks for a great report and pictures.

    in reply to: Lutzen 1632 refought #110810
    Hwiccee
    Participant

    hammurabi: Thank you for your comment. I was involved in the development of the rules so I am not the best person to comment on the quality of the rules. Perhaps take a look at what another regular poster on this forum thought of them – https://www.thewargameswebsite.com/forums/topic/twilight-of-divine-right-first-look-the-battle-of-fleurus/

    norm smith: Thank you too for comment. The show was good as usual and it would have been great to chat. On the basing the game is at the brigade level for units – i.e. a unit is something like what would later be a brigade. So the big base works well to show this but you don’t need to do this if you don’t  want to. All game measurements are based on the frontage of the units you use. So you can have anything as a unit and all you do is vary the basic movement distance.

    in reply to: Lutzen 1632 refought #110800
    Hwiccee
    Participant

    Sorry, it should be good now.

    in reply to: Lutzen 1632 refight #108388
    Hwiccee
    Participant

    Warren,

    I can send you the OOB we used for the game, contact me at [email protected]

    This is for the Twilight of Divine Right rules, These rules use a brigade as a unit and so doesn’t go into details. Also this was a test run and we have since made changes.

    These are mainly because we found a better source on the battle than we used before. This is this book – https://www.amazon.co.uk/L%C3%BCtzen-Battles-Peter-H-Wilson/dp/0199642540 . I thoroughly recommend this book and it has full detailed OOB’s.

    I hope this helps.

    in reply to: Lutzen 1632 refight #106250
    Hwiccee
    Participant

    Lutzen was 21 Swedish units and 25 Imperialist units (and 2 fake units – we recycled reinforcements which were not on table at the start). I think that might be tweaked a bit for the final version of the scenario.

    Breitenfeld is probably the largest battle of the war but if not is certainly one of the largest. It is 42 Swedish/Saxon units and 33 Imperialist units.

    Units can be any size you like as all ranges/movement/etc are scaled to whatever size you use.

    in reply to: Lutzen 1632 refight #105929
    Hwiccee
    Participant

    Whirlwind: I see you are planning to branch out. Well obviously I think these rules will suit what you have in mind, not that this helps much.

    On the TYW types it is the same idea as above. You have the ECW and also ones specific to the TYW. For the infantry you have Early Tercio’s (around 2000 men), Tercio’s and Swedish Brigades (both around 1500 men each).

    Something I didn’t mention before is that basing and exactly how you put the figures on the base does not matter as far as the game is concerned. So you can make units as big or small as you like & base them in any formation you think is right.

    Similarly with the cavalry you have continental/earlier troop types which don’t feature in the ECW and represent up to 800 cavalry as above.

    in reply to: Lutzen 1632 refight #105900
    Hwiccee
    Participant

    Hi Whirlwind. Yes a base is something like a brigade but not exactly.

    Standard infantry units in the game are 1000 to 2000 men, units can also be ‘Small’ or ‘Large’ & so have less/more than this. The size of the unit depends on it’s type and can be any number of units. I know you are into ECW and in that war the infantry are all what is called ‘Regiments’ and a standard unit is 1000 men. That could be a single large regiment at around full strength or maybe 5 understrength units of 200 each or some other combination. In general in the ECW it was common for units to combine/split into ‘battalia’ of circa 500 men, so many will be this.

    The cavalry are similar with standard units of 500 to 800 depending on type. ECW units are 500 as standard representing a varying number of squadrons/troops adding up to that kind of number.

    in reply to: Twilight of Divine Right rules published #105884
    Hwiccee
    Participant

    On the AAR’s I am will post up some stuff on Lutzen 1632 we did a while back. I am afraid that generally my group isn’t good at AAR’s. None of us can use a camera and we just get caught up in the game 🙁

    in reply to: Twilight of Divine Right rules published #105841
    Hwiccee
    Participant

    Hi,

     

    The list of scenarios are on this page http://www.wfgamers.org.uk/resources/C18/Twilight/ToDR.htm

    The ECW ones are –

    Edgehill, 1642
    Lansdown Hil, 1643
    1st Newbury, 1643
    Cropredy Bridge, 1644
    Marston Moor, 1644
    2nd Newbury, 1644
    Naseby, 1645
    Knocknanoss, Ireland, 1647
    Winwick Pass (Preston), 1648
    Dunbar, 1650

    The TYW ones are –

    White Mountain, 1620
    Stadtlohn, 1623
    Lutter, 1626
    Breitenfeld, 1631
    Alte Veste, 1632
    Oldendorf, 1633
    Wittstock, 1636
    Tornavento, 1636
    Montijo, 1644
    Jankau, 1645
    2nd Nordlingen (Allerheim), 1645
    Lens, 1648

    The intention is to release at least one more TYW book, a ‘Eastern’ wars book with Polish/Muscovite/Ottoman battles and a post TYW book (1650’s to 70’s).

    The rules are aimed at doing large battles relatively easily – so most are 1 vs 1 games playable in a single gaming session. Units are rated for tactics, quality, weapon ratio, special abilities/qualities (like having regimental guns or commanded shot). If you are asking can they be used for other similar rules sets then yes they probably can, assuming the set you have in mind has the appropriate period type – unfortunately not all do. You could use them with other sets but with more work.

    I hope that helps.

    in reply to: Army of the Eastern Association #102905
    Hwiccee
    Participant

    Your best bet is the book on the army from the Pike and Shot society – http://www.pikeandshotsociety.org/

    Be warned that you are likely to find that a lot of the info you already have is fictional. The truth is we basically have very little good info on civil war uniforms/flags and most that is out there is just made up.

    You can also look here, this also has ‘fictional’ material – http://wiki.bcw-project.org/start

    in reply to: Field fortifications #100862
    Hwiccee
    Participant

    As with others I think it is rare for actual field battles to have field fortifications but they were more common in smaller actions. Typically these smaller actions featured attacks on garrisons or small forces based in ‘built up’ areas. They are typically small battles that you won’t have heard of unless you are really into ECW or live close to them. The defenders are very outnumbered and occupying some village/town which has little formal defences. So the defence in enhanced with field fortifications – perhaps blocking roads, covering gaps not covered by existing hedges, walls, buildings or terrain, etc.

    Unfortunately I can’t think of any that feature the Scots but Selby, which was an important and quite big battle fought against Newcastle’s Royalists during the Scottish invasion, did. It featured the part of Newcastle’s army which was left behind when the rest went to contest the Scottish advance into England. The part left behind was attacked and defeated by the Northern Parliamentarians in Selby. The Royalists occupied the town which had no formal defences and used barricades, etc, to strengthen the position.

    The ECW scenario books sold by Caliver books often have scenarios featuring art least some – I picked up one of these at random and about 1/3rd of the scenarios have some kind of field fortifications.

    in reply to: Cavalier uniforms #99366
    Hwiccee
    Participant

    The cavalry all wore buff coats for protection. So unless they also had metal armour they would all be uniformly buff coloured, although that colour could vary a bit.

    in reply to: GNW Swedish Pike to Musket Ratio #92278
    Hwiccee
    Participant

    Not what I would do but they are your figures. You do seem to have a lot of ‘command’ and few muskets. I make it 5 or 6 command, 7 pikes and 5 or 6 muskets.

     

    in reply to: GNW Swedish Pike to Musket Ratio #92273
    Hwiccee
    Participant

    Most Swedish units were supposed to have 2 muskets to 1 pike. But it is likely that the lower quality units, the garrison units and German units, were short of pikes or indeed had none. After 1709 there was a general shortage of pikes and so many units, even good ones, had less or none.

    Units had a small number of grenadiers but these usually looked just like the rest of the unit. They did have 2 permanent grenadier battalions but not at the same time. One was a battalion of the Life Guard and was lost in 1709. The other was raised latter in the war. Both would be all musket armed.

    Pikes were usually grouped together in a central block and had the pikes. So I would go with the colours and pikes in the central block and put the officers/musicians on 1 or 2 of the other stands with the muskets

    in reply to: Lutzen by Peter H Wilson #87566
    Hwiccee
    Participant

    Guy,

     

    A very nice summary/review of this book. I agree totally and it is nice to see a modern view on this era/battle.

    A ‘must have’ if you interested in the TYW I think.

     

     

    in reply to: 15mm Franco-Prussian and 6mm Napoleonic battles #86529
    Hwiccee
    Participant

    Nice to see a game of Fire and Furia Francese on here. It looks great and a nice report as well.

    in reply to: Breitenfeld Question #86215
    Hwiccee
    Participant

    Guy,

     

    OK on ‘Bricoles’. Something I missed but then most stuff on TMP is in my opinion ‘missable’.

    Yes on Daniel – another good post by him on TMP recently, he is one of the few there worth reading.

    Talking about reading, my copy of Wilson’s Lutzen book arrived. I have only had time for a quick look but it looks really good. I am sure it was meant to be published a lot later on but my friend told me it was out, so I was also surprised it was out.

    Sources/Croats: Yes and this on sources was really addressed more generally. On the Croats and indeed much of the Imperialist/League deployment is ‘best guesses’ from limited information.

    in reply to: Breitenfeld Question #86083
    Hwiccee
    Participant

    What are ‘bricoles’?

    Guy I was agreeing with you generally but just trying to point out that this is a problem generally and not just for the TYW.  Much that ‘we know’ about the ECW and the whole period up to the SYW is based on not very sound info.

    I too despair at ever reading a full account by Daniel, but it does look like he might produce something soon and whatever it is like I am sure it will be an interesting read.

    I don’t know on Wilson and the deployment there. But I think from the little I know that Daniel is right in that we basically don’t know. So I guess this is a ‘best guess’ interpretation of the deployment. Something that might be of interest is this – https://www.amazon.co.uk/L%C3%BCtzen-Battles-Peter-H-Wilson/dp/0199642540 . A friend of mine has it and says it is great, mine is in the post and I can’t wait 🙂

    in reply to: Breitenfeld Question #86035
    Hwiccee
    Participant

    Peter Wilson is a first class historian and I think very reliable. He is probably the best writer in English at the moment on this war. But his battle descriptions in Europe’s Tragedy are mainly overviews as it is a relatively small book covering the whole war.

    Daniel Staberg is a possible very promising potential author but as yet has not written anything. He has been working on the ‘definitive’ account of this battle for sometime. But as has been mentioned this will not provide all the details we as gamers might like, for the simple reason that they just don’t exist.

    I don’t think Staberg is dismissive of everything non Swedish but of much of the information out there used by English historians and thus by gamers. For this era and really up to around the SYW era much of the history in English is not good and many of the details are unknown or misunderstood. A lot of the time you can’t just ‘push the research’ on to someone else as it is a complicated matter of piecing together bits and pieces, hints, half suggestions, etc. There simply are not nice clear texts telling you everything, again up to around the SYW.

    On this era, and why the Swedish stuff is less easy to dismiss, the best information we have in English comes from Swedish sources and so what we in the English speaking world is ‘less wrong’ about them than others.

     

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 106 total)