Lead Adventure Forum

Miniatures Adventure => Pikes, Muskets and Flouncy Shirts => Topic started by: joroas on 04 May 2010, 10:12:07 PM

Title: Charles I
Post by: joroas on 04 May 2010, 10:12:07 PM
News from Warlord:

Quote
Warlord Games We've been entertaining royalty today - Charles I was being pressed into a master mould. And no, he doesn't come with a detachable head...
  lol
Title: Re: Charles I
Post by: timg on 04 May 2010, 10:44:07 PM
Lol, very good!
Title: Re: Charles I
Post by: Yankeepedlar01 on 05 May 2010, 08:30:46 AM
I've seen him, I'm sure you'll like him, but he's not got a detachable head! :D
Title: Re: Charles I
Post by: Galloping Major on 05 May 2010, 08:50:13 AM
"The man of blood", pre being improved by head detachment.

Should be popular with womantically wong woyalists  lol

Look forward to seeing the figure.
Title: Re: Charles I
Post by: joroas on 05 May 2010, 09:43:37 AM
Quote
I've seen him, I'm sure you'll like him, but he's not got a detachable head!

Nothing a sharp razor saw couldn't correct........  lol
Title: Re: Charles I
Post by: Doc Twilight on 05 May 2010, 09:45:28 AM
About the time the good guys got representation....

Dig up Cromwell and fill him full of more holes, I say;) If there's anything left of old Wartyface.

-Doc
Title: Re: Charles I
Post by: Galloping Major on 05 May 2010, 10:43:14 AM
Too late mate: isn't that pretty much what Chas II did after the restoration?

Actually, during the part of the First Civil War I find most appealing, Cromwell was 2IC of the Eastern Association Army, Thomas Fairfax, William Waller, Philip Skippon etc were far more prominent than he.

The King, however, was still the king, not neccessarily the worst monarch we ever had, but not far off - certainly far from being a good guy.

To paraphrase 1066 and All That: Woyalists, womantic but wrong.  lol
Title: Re: Charles I
Post by: Plynkes on 05 May 2010, 10:47:00 AM
Good guys, my arse.
Title: Re: Charles I
Post by: Doc Twilight on 05 May 2010, 11:02:36 AM
Too late mate: isn't that pretty much what Chas II did after the restoration?

Actually, during the part of the First Civil War I find most appealing, Cromwell was 2IC of the Eastern Association Army, Thomas Fairfax, William Waller, Philip Skippon etc were far more prominent than he.

The King, however, was still the king, not neccessarily the worst monarch we ever had, but not far off - certainly far from being a good guy.

To paraphrase 1066 and All That: Woyalists, womantic but wrong.  lol

Yes, he did indeed.

My Irish grandmother had a particular love of Cromwell... or was that a particular hatred?;)

I'm not saying Chaz was fantastic, but I don't think the fellows who replaced him were any better.

-Doc
Title: Re: Charles I
Post by: joroas on 05 May 2010, 11:03:39 AM
Quote
not neccessarily the worst monarch we ever had, but not far off

Not sure that I agree, a typical younger son left with a job he was not prepared for, having had an upbringing that told him he was a little god and having been ashamed of his father's dissolute lifestyle and adopting, therefore, an incredibly moral stance.  Misguided, maybe, shy and uncomfortable, certainly, stubborn, absolutely, but a bad person, I'm not sure.  I liken him to Nicholas II, a good guy but in the wrong job at the wrong time and inheriting a wealth of bad karma from previous monarchs.
Title: Re: Charles I
Post by: Galloping Major on 05 May 2010, 12:59:29 PM
Not sure that I agree, a typical younger son left with a job he was not prepared for, having had an upbringing that told him he was a little god and having been ashamed of his father's dissolute lifestyle and adopting, therefore, an incredibly moral stance.  Misguided, maybe, shy and uncomfortable, certainly, stubborn, absolutely, but a bad person, I'm not sure.  I liken him to Nicholas II, a good guy but in the wrong job at the wrong time and inheriting a wealth of bad karma from previous monarchs.

I must say, that's about the most reasonable defence of him I've come across so far  ;)

Still, you have to have an enemy to fight in a war, so no doubt he'll be a popular choice.  :)
Title: Re: Charles I
Post by: ushistoryprof on 05 May 2010, 05:31:50 PM
About the time the good guys got representation....

Dig up Cromwell and fill him full of more holes, I say;) If there's anything left of old Wartyface.

-Doc

Then hang and tar the body-death is too good for him. (He was a good general though too damn good actually).
Title: Re: Charles I
Post by: Plynkes on 05 May 2010, 05:44:37 PM
Funny how these Yankee-Doodle-Dandies are so keen for us Brits to be saddled with an absolute monarchy and the Divine Rights of Kings. Weren't so damn eager for it for themselves, as I recall.

Bleedin' hypocrites.    ;)
Title: Re: Charles I
Post by: ushistoryprof on 05 May 2010, 05:49:00 PM
Funny how these Yankee-Doodle-Dandies are so keen for us Brits to be saddled with an absolute monarchy and the Divine Rights of Kings. Weren't so damn eager for it for themselves, as I recall.

Bleedin' hypocrites.    ;)
Better you than us, besides tradition is so much more important in the Old World, to many over here have no respect for the ideas of the past.
Title: Re: Charles I
Post by: Operator5 on 05 May 2010, 05:52:30 PM
Funny how these Yankee-Doodle-Dandies are so keen for us Brits to be saddled with an absolute monarchy and the Divine Rights of Kings. Weren't so damn eager for it for themselves, as I recall.

Bleedin' hypocrites.    ;)
I'd be more than happy to be declared absolute monarch over here. Anyone else would just be a pretender to the throne.  lol
Title: Re: Charles I
Post by: Aaron on 05 May 2010, 06:14:22 PM
Funny how these Yankee-Doodle-Dandies are so keen for us Brits to be saddled with an absolute monarchy and the Divine Rights of Kings. Weren't so damn eager for it for themselves, as I recall.

Bleedin' hypocrites.    ;)

In high school my AP American History teacher instructed the class to write a short paper explaining the causes of the rebellion and why it was justified. I shocked the teacher by being the only student (ever in his career) who actually argued that it was unjustified. He gave me an A, but he did call me a "Tory creep". 
Title: Re: Charles I
Post by: joroas on 05 May 2010, 06:21:16 PM
Quote
I shocked the teacher by being the only student (ever in his career) who actually argued that it was unjustified. He gave me an A, but he did call me a "Tory creep

Yay, good on you.  What you thought we would defend you from the natives for free? 

The republic was founded on a lie, all men are created equal-  what hypocricy in a slave owning country that went on to steal the natives' land after they killed them?  Charles doesn't look to bad now
Title: Re: Charles I
Post by: Galloping Major on 05 May 2010, 06:26:11 PM
In high school my AP American History teacher instructed the class to write a short paper explaining the causes of the rebellion and why it was justified. I shocked the teacher by being the only student (ever in his career) who actually argued that it was unjustified. He gave me an A, but he did call me a "Tory creep". 

Good man Aaron, standing up for your point of view - and often the best course to swim against the tide of general acceptance of the popularly received view - more likely to stand out that way, as long as they don't drown you first  lol

To be fair, George III was nothing like the absolute monarch Charles I wanted to be - thanks to the English Revolution in the C17th.  :D ;)
Title: Re: Charles I
Post by: Aaron on 05 May 2010, 06:28:12 PM
Honestly I didn't do it to shock or stand out. I always thought it was amazingly cheeky of us. Washington starts the war while trying to steal land to speculate on, Britain foots the bill, and then the colonists have the nerve to gripe when asked to pay for a (very small) part of it. I know that is a gross simplification, but for crying out loud we were still paying far less in taxes than the folks back home in Britain.
Title: Re: Charles I
Post by: Plynkes on 05 May 2010, 06:29:38 PM
I tend to see the American Revolution as less about Mel Gibson-style teary-eyed FREEDOM! and TYRANNY! and all that rot, and more like a disagreement between friends over dividing up a restaurant bill (that got a bit out of hand).
Title: Re: Charles I
Post by: Galloping Major on 05 May 2010, 06:32:54 PM
Honestly I didn't do it to shock or stand out. I always thought it was amazingly cheeky of us. Washington starts the war while trying to steal land to speculate on, Britain foots the bill, and then the colonists have the nerve to gripe when asked to pay for a (very small) part of it. I know that is a gross simplification, but for crying out loud we were still paying far less in taxes than the folks back home in Britain.

Actually, that sumes it up extremely well, GW even cleared off for a while until he thought he could start making good on his dodgy "investments". But let's not forget, we were all British citizens then  :)
Title: Re: Charles I
Post by: Galloping Major on 05 May 2010, 06:33:28 PM
I tend to see the American Revolution as less about Mel Gibson-style teary-eyed FREEDOM! and TYRANNY! and all that rot, and more like a disagreement between friends over dividing up a restaurant bill (that got a bit out of hand).

Brilliantly put Plynkes  8)
Title: Re: Charles I
Post by: Aaron on 05 May 2010, 06:35:33 PM
I tend to see the American Revolution as less about Mel Gibson-style teary-eyed FREEDOM! and TYRANNY! and all that rot, and more like a disagreement between friends over dividing up a restaurant bill (that got a bit out of hand).

Best summary of the AWI I have ever seen!  lol