Sorry for the lack of updates the past few days I have been rather unwell and not really in the frame of mind for making posts. However I feel a little better and intend to make some small comments on the wargaming and historical activities that have taken place. Also, in other news, I played my first game of Rugby for two seasons, I felt a little rough to say the least!
The tufts arrived today, I have 2x Heather, 1x Patchy and 1x Wild Meadow from the Warlord War World range. My intention that with these a some more muted static grass I can create an upland theme. The static grass being muted should allowed for the heather and tufts to 'pop' a little better. This and evening and tomorrow shall be the test, I will post the outcomes at a later date.
In terms of reading it has mostly been in regards to looking at the Romano -British. Guy Halsall's 'The Worlds of Arthur' is a tome I have owned for quite some time but I have never given it my full attention. It starts out with a decent summarisation of the nature and a discussion of the previous scholarship relating to 4/5th Century Britain. It then gives a critical analysis of the major historical sources (6th-12th Centuries) relating to Arthur (or at least those used when looking at the 'historical' Arthur). Then finally the volumes attempts to re-examine the nature of Anglo-Saxon migration and settlement although some of the conclusions may be a little 'out there'. The book it sit in weird positionn I find. Guy Halsall is not a 'popular historian' he is a Professor of Early Medieval History at the University of York (and a keen wargamer to boot!) but the book seems marketed as such. The publication is NOT popular history but yet it is not quite a full academic work (the lack of in line or footnote references is the main issue). Overall it is a decent introduction to Post Imperial Britain and the debunking of most claims to a historical Arthur (that is not to say that the author thinks that he never existed just that it is almost impossible to tell).
Showing posts with label Thoughts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Thoughts. Show all posts
Saturday, 12 November 2016
Wednesday, 9 November 2016
Basing Miniatures
Having completed the first 12 Romano-Britons the matter arises of basing the figures. I am not a very competent 'baser' of models. They either appear too plain or I think they appear too crowded or somehow artificial feeling. I struggle with making the scenes seem natural. There is one exception my Beitland AK47 army (in 15mm and can be seen in the archives). I feel that I did a relatively decent job at making the Southern African veld. This, however, was rather simple; merely static grass, tufts and a clump foliage.
In an effort to combat this lack of creativity I have ordered some more grass tufts of various greens, browns and even some heather. The theme for the basing will be some based around Upland/moor areas.
The problem arises when trying to tie all these features together. Generally this would be done through static grass. I am however generally unhappy with static grass that is available as I find it far too green. I have found a more muted type but in some cases (and on some figures) it seems far too dull. It seems rather difficult to find a statc grass of the correct colour. My experimentations in individual blends have also been met with such failures. While nothing that I have done looks bad, it is not at the level which I desire.
I believe some more practice/blending is required in order to fully get a handle over this material. I would welcome any advice or help in regards to this matter.
In an effort to combat this lack of creativity I have ordered some more grass tufts of various greens, browns and even some heather. The theme for the basing will be some based around Upland/moor areas.
The problem arises when trying to tie all these features together. Generally this would be done through static grass. I am however generally unhappy with static grass that is available as I find it far too green. I have found a more muted type but in some cases (and on some figures) it seems far too dull. It seems rather difficult to find a statc grass of the correct colour. My experimentations in individual blends have also been met with such failures. While nothing that I have done looks bad, it is not at the level which I desire.
I believe some more practice/blending is required in order to fully get a handle over this material. I would welcome any advice or help in regards to this matter.
Monday, 7 November 2016
The Romano British Military
This will be a brief discussion on the Romano-British military and how it relates to the wargamer and my decisions and thought processes in regards to the creation of the army.
The Migration-Era/Sub Roman/Early Medieval, whatever one wants to call it, is both my favourite period of history and wargaming. It allows for the creation of many fine stories and scenarios based in both history and legend. The general nature of the warfare (well at least in Great Britain) does not require too many figures and allows for a great variety of both colours and types (lets not forget the shields! Late Roman/Romano British designs have to be my favourite).
To begin, Sub Roman Britain (post 410AD) is a period with rather limited written and physical evidence (and that's before you even bring the question of Arthur in!). This is especially apparent with regards to the military structures. The main point of contention is the nature of Roman institutions and how long they continued/are applicable post departure. This point should be qualified that this is very dependant upon the location within Britain. Upland areas, those to the North and West, generally had far less Roman influence than those to the South and East. So it is expected that these areas would have 'reverted' far sooner if not straight away. This is primarily based off of excavations and re-use of upland sites/hillforts combined with coinage distributions.
For the purposes of this blog my Romano-British force is from what would be Southern England from the mid 5th Century. The force still exerts a strong Roman influence in terms of equipment and organisation. Whether this was actually the case is debatable. My own knowledge and research as a scholar is, to be frank, unsure. There is some evidence to suggest some characteristics continued as seen in the Breton Kingdom of the later 5th Century (for those unaware the Bretons of Brittany were migrants from Southern Britain). For miniature purposes, however, I enjoy the Romanised style far more than that of the 'traditional' Celtic styles. This may be partly explained due to the greater contrast it provides with the barbarian forces they would face, both in terms of appearance as well as organisation.
The army that I have assembled consists of:
The core of said army would not be out of place within a Late Roman force of the same period. Units of all of the above were found within Late-Roman Britain. Whether this force accurately represents the military of lowland sub Roman Britain is another matter. I think it is definitely possible and probably but the study of history require more than that. Like all my forces they very rarely represent actual units or kingdoms but attempt to cover the general period while being as accurate or true to the general idea of the time as possible. However like this force some lee-way in terms of accuracy is given for aesthetic considerations. If I do not like the figures, the time and effort to paint and finish them will never be found.
Expansion of the force will include a slight increase in the number of Armoured and Heavy Cavalry as well as the purchase of some Lighter Cavalry (once again in the Roman Style). For a more accurate army one might look to various Germanic mercenaries/allies as was the case in both Britain and the Western Roman Empire. I have an early/mid Saxon army from which suitable figures may be drawn so as such do not require more of the same type. However, I enjoy keeping the armies 'pure' for mostly aesthetic and cohesive reasons. The other reason is that the figures are partly designed with the game Dux Britannarium in mind (as well as the original Warhammer Ancient Battles of which I am/was a fan). Said game, at least at the beginning, does not use any mercenaries.
While this has been the briefest of discussions I may attempt to post a more in depth examination in the near future (time permitting).
The Migration-Era/Sub Roman/Early Medieval, whatever one wants to call it, is both my favourite period of history and wargaming. It allows for the creation of many fine stories and scenarios based in both history and legend. The general nature of the warfare (well at least in Great Britain) does not require too many figures and allows for a great variety of both colours and types (lets not forget the shields! Late Roman/Romano British designs have to be my favourite).
To begin, Sub Roman Britain (post 410AD) is a period with rather limited written and physical evidence (and that's before you even bring the question of Arthur in!). This is especially apparent with regards to the military structures. The main point of contention is the nature of Roman institutions and how long they continued/are applicable post departure. This point should be qualified that this is very dependant upon the location within Britain. Upland areas, those to the North and West, generally had far less Roman influence than those to the South and East. So it is expected that these areas would have 'reverted' far sooner if not straight away. This is primarily based off of excavations and re-use of upland sites/hillforts combined with coinage distributions.
For the purposes of this blog my Romano-British force is from what would be Southern England from the mid 5th Century. The force still exerts a strong Roman influence in terms of equipment and organisation. Whether this was actually the case is debatable. My own knowledge and research as a scholar is, to be frank, unsure. There is some evidence to suggest some characteristics continued as seen in the Breton Kingdom of the later 5th Century (for those unaware the Bretons of Brittany were migrants from Southern Britain). For miniature purposes, however, I enjoy the Romanised style far more than that of the 'traditional' Celtic styles. This may be partly explained due to the greater contrast it provides with the barbarian forces they would face, both in terms of appearance as well as organisation.
The army that I have assembled consists of:
- 10 Heavy/Shock Cavalry in the Roman style
- 20 Regular Armoured Infantry in the Roman style
- 20 Unarmoured Infantry in the Roman style
- 20 Archers in the Roman style
- 2 x 20 Militia/Pedyt in a rather my irregular style to the above
The core of said army would not be out of place within a Late Roman force of the same period. Units of all of the above were found within Late-Roman Britain. Whether this force accurately represents the military of lowland sub Roman Britain is another matter. I think it is definitely possible and probably but the study of history require more than that. Like all my forces they very rarely represent actual units or kingdoms but attempt to cover the general period while being as accurate or true to the general idea of the time as possible. However like this force some lee-way in terms of accuracy is given for aesthetic considerations. If I do not like the figures, the time and effort to paint and finish them will never be found.
Expansion of the force will include a slight increase in the number of Armoured and Heavy Cavalry as well as the purchase of some Lighter Cavalry (once again in the Roman Style). For a more accurate army one might look to various Germanic mercenaries/allies as was the case in both Britain and the Western Roman Empire. I have an early/mid Saxon army from which suitable figures may be drawn so as such do not require more of the same type. However, I enjoy keeping the armies 'pure' for mostly aesthetic and cohesive reasons. The other reason is that the figures are partly designed with the game Dux Britannarium in mind (as well as the original Warhammer Ancient Battles of which I am/was a fan). Said game, at least at the beginning, does not use any mercenaries.
While this has been the briefest of discussions I may attempt to post a more in depth examination in the near future (time permitting).
Friday, 28 October 2016
Painting Thoughts
This post shall be a little different from the others posted on this blog so far. It is more of a thought piece on something that happened this evening. Recently I have been a little burnt out in regards to Ancient Greece, it having been my focus for the last few months. So to alleviate that I try and do some other periods/figures, hence the 15mm Romans seen recently. Tonight I felt like painting something radically different and a project that I started quite a long time ago, my Warhammer 40,000 Sisters of Battle army.
Now I am no 40k gamer. I haven't played a game, let alone on a regular basis, in years. I do however enjoy bits of the setting and aesthetic, the Sisters being part of this. When I started the army there was very little intention of it ever being used, it was for the joy of collecting and painting an army. So this evening I decided I would try and finish a few figures. I was quite happy with how the figures were going and that they were painted (for my skill level) to a high standard. When I pulled the figures from the case I was immediately surprised at my reaction to my own work. I wasn't at all happy with it. On a technical level it was passable. It was the nature of the colours I used, how could I have thought that those methods/palette looked good. It made me want to strip the figures and start all over from scratch.
On reflection I may have been a little hard on myself, they did not look THAT bad. More than reasonable but I still have the inclination to strip them and start again. This has not really happened to me before. I am normally accepting of the final state of my figures even if I know I could have done a better job. It merely left me wondering what had changed. Was I being picky? do other wargamers painters feel this way (I imagine everyone does at some point)? how do they cope/act on it? Is it the fact that the army is purely for my own painting pleasure so I feel the need for it to be the 'best'?
These are the questions I asked myself. I'm still unsure as why I reacted in such a way. Any comments about this from your own experiences, dear readers, would be much appreciated. I have posted a picture below of the unfinished St. Celestine figure. I am mostly dissatisfied with the armour. I believe that is the cause of my consternation.
In some more positive news I have worked on adding some examples to Aristeia. This is mostly in the areas of basic game mechanics such as Movement, Shooting and Close Combat. Hopefully I can get some diagrams to go along with these examples in the not too distant future. I'd also like to have the basic rules sorted for proper testing in a relatively short time. That means some battle reports can be posted and give a far better flavour as to the game than my mere descriptions can.
Now I am no 40k gamer. I haven't played a game, let alone on a regular basis, in years. I do however enjoy bits of the setting and aesthetic, the Sisters being part of this. When I started the army there was very little intention of it ever being used, it was for the joy of collecting and painting an army. So this evening I decided I would try and finish a few figures. I was quite happy with how the figures were going and that they were painted (for my skill level) to a high standard. When I pulled the figures from the case I was immediately surprised at my reaction to my own work. I wasn't at all happy with it. On a technical level it was passable. It was the nature of the colours I used, how could I have thought that those methods/palette looked good. It made me want to strip the figures and start all over from scratch.
On reflection I may have been a little hard on myself, they did not look THAT bad. More than reasonable but I still have the inclination to strip them and start again. This has not really happened to me before. I am normally accepting of the final state of my figures even if I know I could have done a better job. It merely left me wondering what had changed. Was I being picky? do other wargamers painters feel this way (I imagine everyone does at some point)? how do they cope/act on it? Is it the fact that the army is purely for my own painting pleasure so I feel the need for it to be the 'best'?
These are the questions I asked myself. I'm still unsure as why I reacted in such a way. Any comments about this from your own experiences, dear readers, would be much appreciated. I have posted a picture below of the unfinished St. Celestine figure. I am mostly dissatisfied with the armour. I believe that is the cause of my consternation.
In some more positive news I have worked on adding some examples to Aristeia. This is mostly in the areas of basic game mechanics such as Movement, Shooting and Close Combat. Hopefully I can get some diagrams to go along with these examples in the not too distant future. I'd also like to have the basic rules sorted for proper testing in a relatively short time. That means some battle reports can be posted and give a far better flavour as to the game than my mere descriptions can.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)