Page 1 of 1
What's right in WOTR re-enactment?
Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 1:43 pm
To hell with this I'm sick of picking at the faults of what we do
So lets talk about what we do well instead
Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 1:45 pm
The much better early medieval period that doesn't appear in it
Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 2:09 pm
Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 9:12 pm
The potential certainly to put across some really interesting aspects of the early modern period, a period of huge social transition - that potential is immense indeed.
That there is a diversity of opinion and interpretation across a large number of groups is a good thing I feel.
Oh and you can shoot people with bows and arrows, which is always a bonus imho.
Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 9:12 pm
Blokes in armour? Pole arms fights in which you can actually fight, rather than play a variation on rugby? Development of technology? Archers?
HHmm, there must be more.
Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 9:56 pm
The Wars of the Roses is a fascinating period. A great dynastic struggle spanning several generations featuring memorable individuals such as the duplicitous Kingmaker, that nasty French harlot and good King Richard
I'm interested in all history actually but the WOTR is my favourite era. Possibly because I was never taught it at school (as a Scot the medieval period began with Wallace and ended with Bruce), I decided to read up and find out more bout it myself. I love the holes in the evidence, the points of debate.
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 9:43 am
You have also got the Scottish association with Dick the Child Murdering Despot With no Mates and Only Famous Because he was Mentioned in a Play of the Same Name III's Scottish campaign.
Ed IV, yes, Dick the Nasty - no, for no other reason than to keep the flames of irrational loyalty and prejudice going...
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 10:59 pm
wot we do well? Waiting about in baking sun/pissing rain
wearing heavy armour and thinking that it's going to feel sooooo nice to take it off
suddenly going deaf on the field unless our sergeant is REALLY scary
grin too much in combat (or is that just me?)
drink lots of beer
eat unsuitable food
sing songs very badly
show off like mad
really enjoy not being joe public sitting at home watching crap telly and playing ex-box.
get cold (nighttime)
get too hot (daytime)
feel free to add...
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 11:19 pm
Giving newbies helmets that are too big so that they keep falling over their eyes and they end up fighting their own men
Spending money we don't have on kit we don't need but GOTTA have
Spending most of the day in purgatory because we shouldn't have had so much to drink last night and those nasty Lancastrians fought harder today
Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 12:14 am
"nasty Lancastrians fought harder today"
See the revisionist Ricardian dream being played out in our modern era, PC at its worst.
"Aw ,Richard was nice, there is no evidence to say he killed the princes"
<despite having a very good bloody motive and being medieval>
"he was a good king"
<Any king that institutes the death penalty for not attending a commission f array is a bad egg.>
The British people love supporting the underdog, so he must have done it.
ergo pro sum quo vadis tempus illigitimi
as the man said.
Oh and he lost..........
which is the closer really.
Bothered? am I?
Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 12:26 am
The Princes certainly died within the tenure of RIII and I am 75% certain that he was responsible. The 25% of doubt comes from the chronciclers who said that they came to be seen less and less which may suggest sickness.
The fact that he had his own brother declared a bastard was not very pleasant but Baldrick Robinson claimed to have found proof that the Duke of York was in France when EdIV was conceived. Was there any more made on that?
Medieval kings were nasty despots by definition, except Henry VI - so he had it coming!
Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 12:51 am
" Baldrick Robinson claimed to have found proof that the Duke of York.... "
I rest my case m'lord.
Kings do not have to be present when they commission a nasty deed, it does not reduce their guilt one iota.
Besides Cragy baby, you are taking this too seriously, my facetious comments are not meant to actually stimulate sensible dialogue.
Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 1:10 am
especially after that bonus brandy
Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 9:40 am
I quite enjoy givingt the
"Richard III, evil child murdering, crookbacked despot. God Love him he's our employer" speech at Bosworth. It allows me to offend both sets of pre-conceived opinions and generally ensures I get a really good fight.
We do a awfull lot of things well.
Armour Looks great and entertains the MOP's.
Some prime events on actual battle/fields or sites. I mean Roman/Dark Ages can say what they want and Hastings IS Cool, but Castles rock.
WOTR shares this with Early Med and ECW but on the whole WOTR gigs have cooler venues. ECW have built shopping centres on most of theirs and most of the Early stuff is either in France or Wales (Hi Ross!
) and therefore dont count.
Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 10:37 am
"It allows me to offend both sets of pre-conceived opinions and generally ensures I get a really good fight. "
man after my own heart, bless.
Posted: Sun Nov 13, 2005 10:03 am
Whats right in WoR re-enactment?
Posted: Sun Nov 13, 2005 7:11 pm
I almost thought you were looking for an argument for a second, but yes, the politics are authentic, except the good thing is that 5,000 people dont get killed and maimed to sort out whose boss.
Posted: Mon Nov 14, 2005 7:20 pm
No telephone - Hurrah!
Posted: Mon Nov 14, 2005 10:00 pm
guthrie wrote:I almost thought you were looking for an argument for a second, but yes, the politics are authentic, except the good thing is that 5,000 people dont get killed and maimed to sort out whose boss.
Correct,nobody gets killed or maimed,just bitter & twisted