Dead Man's Hand Down Under

[Mad Lord Snapcase]

Will these two extra figures be available in an offer like the £60 book and three existing sets or should I order the £60 offer plus the two figures?

[Leigh Metford]

Bugsda - if you want to follow up your enquiry here are two online resources:

1. For the most cogent, in-depth military-historical analysis of frontier conflict (specific to south-east Queensland, but with wider application) yet published see 'A Different Mode of War', by Raymond Kerkhove.

2. For a first-hand account of a frontier skirmish see the tenth page of 'The Recollections of Thomas Davis'. Davis was the father of Steele Rudd, author of Australian literary classic 'On Our Selection', which was the progenitor of radio and TV comedy-drama 'Dad and Dave'.

On the subject of the size of Aboriginal tribal forces, as I said, 600 was a maximum figure, and such numbers were only possible where there was abundant food - such as on a major river. The explorer Charles Sturt had a close call during his explorations of the River Murray in 1830, when his party, confined to a boat, prepared to defend itself from a mass of angry warriors daubed with white, 'skeletal' warpaint that Sturt estimated to number about 600. Conflict was only averted at the last moment when an elder from a tribe they'd previously had a peaceful encounter with appeared and intervened to deter the would-be attackers. There's a famous painting of this encounter that shows Sturt's men with muskets loaded and poised ready to fire if need be.

In the early 1840s conflict did occur between the river tribes and overlanders bringing cattle and sheep from NSW to SA in the vicinity of a branch of the Murray called the Rufus River. Here are a couple of excerpts from the reports of the leaders of overlanding parties.

From former South Australian Commissioner of Police Henry Inman, April 1841: 'The natives, in number about 300 or 400, commenced the attack by issuing boldly from the scrub, and waddies flew in all directions'.

Concerning another fight with an expedition lead by Charles Langhorne*:

The overseer, Miller, who suffered seven spear wounds during the fight said: "We were surrounded by a party of about 500 natives, and, when reloading the drays, the blacks rushed towards us and commenced throwing waddies.'

Langhorne himself said: ' I was not present at the time of the attack. But from information I have received on my joining the party, I consider the number of blacks was from 500 to 600.'

Interestingly, further on in his report Langhorne says: '... the overland route is now completely closed and this fierce tribe will no doubt become more daring in consequence of having now defeated three successive parties.'       

*Four members of this party were killed.

 

         

[Bugsda]

Bugsda - if you want to follow up your enquiry here are two online resources:

I will, cheers 

[FramFramson]

Bugsda - if you want to follow up your enquiry here are two online resources:

1. For the most cogent, in-depth military-historical analysis of frontier conflict (specific to south-east Queensland, but with wider application) yet published see 'A Different Mode of War', by Raymond Kerkhove.

2. For a first-hand account of a frontier skirmish see the tenth page of 'The Recollections of Thomas Davis'. Davis was the father of Steele Rudd, author of Australian literary classic 'On Our Selection', which was the progenitor of radio and TV comedy-drama 'Dad and Dave'.

On the subject of the size of Aboriginal tribal forces, as I said, 600 was a maximum figure, and such numbers were only possible where there was abundant food - such as on a major river. The explorer Charles Sturt had a close call during his explorations of the River Murray in 1830, when his party, confined to a boat, prepared to defend itself from a mass of angry warriors daubed with white, 'skeletal' warpaint that Sturt estimated to number about 600. Conflict was only averted at the last moment when an elder from a tribe they'd previously had a peaceful encounter with appeared and intervened to deter the would-be attackers. There's a famous painting of this encounter that shows Sturt's men with muskets loaded and poised ready to fire if need be.

In the early 1840s conflict did occur between the river tribes and overlanders bringing cattle and sheep from NSW to SA in the vicinity of a branch of the Murray called the Rufus River. Here are a couple of excerpts from the reports of the leaders of overlanding parties.

From former South Australian Commissioner of Police Henry Inman, April 1841: 'The natives, in number about 300 or 400, commenced the attack by issuing boldly from the scrub, and waddies flew in all directions'.

Concerning another fight with an expedition lead by Charles Langhorne*:

The overseer, Miller, who suffered seven spear wounds during the fight said: "We were surrounded by a party of about 500 natives, and, when reloading the drays, the blacks rushed towards us and commenced throwing waddies.'

Langhorne himself said: ' I was not present at the time of the attack. But from information I have received on my joining the party, I consider the number of blacks was from 500 to 600.'

Interestingly, further on in his report Langhorne says: '... the overland route is now completely closed and this fierce tribe will no doubt become more daring in consequence of having now defeated three successive parties.'       

*Four members of this party were killed.

With regards to those numbers, the one thing I noted is that the sources are people with, well, shall we say an interest in inflating them. And even if the numbers are close "A party of 500 natives" may not have been a party of 500 warriors.

[Leigh Metford]

I can assure you that in all these encounters during the Rufus River conflict only warriors were present, Fram. The whites were droving large mobs of sheep and herds of cattle (which, BTW, were deliberately scattered and destroyed by the Aborigines), and their sole objective was to get them to their destination as quickly as possible; they had neither the time nor the resources to search for and preemptively attack native camps - so the initiative was entirely with the Aborigines. The tribesmen massed directly across the stock route specifically to block their passage. Their families would have been well away from the scene of the fighting. Obviously these are just extracts, and if you read them in the context of the full first-hand reports and accounts you'll see that this is so. Later reports from government officials with no motive for inflating numbers, who participated in the punitive expeditions that ensued from these fights, record similar numbers for the tribal forces.

This is only one example of numbers of this order; there are other reports and accounts of equally large Aboriginal forces, mostly from Queensland, where historical demographers have concluded that indigenous population densities were higher than anywhere else on the continent - particularly in the well watered tropical and sub-tropical eastern portion of the colony

I presume your second comment is based on a reading of Davis' account. That was an entirely different situation, in which the settlers and NMP, unburdened by any other considerations and driven by a sense of urgency, went in search of the native 'mob' specifically to disperse it before the warriors could launch their attack on the station (i.e. it WAS an attempt at a preemptive strike) and caught them still encamped with their families. Fortunately for the Aborigines they were numerous and determined enough to drive the settlers away from the camp, and in the end, from the field. Davis doesn't say whether they subsequently went through with the attack on the station as they'd - possibly - originally planned. Perhaps the fight with his party disrupted their plans and exhausted them sufficiently to deter them. If so, I  guess you'd have to call it a tactical defeat, but a strategic victory, for the colonials.  

 

[axabrax]

Apparently we are no longer talking about bushranging, conflicts with the law, nor about Dead Man's Hand. Considering that all the other DMH threads have been locked and this is the "official" DMH thread, I wonder if it would be better to start a new thread on the frontier wars? Just a thought. 

[axabrax]

In case anyone is wondering, the first rogue is not a retirement home version of Marstin from Quigley but more reminiscent of John Hurt's drunken gentleman bounty hunter from the Proposition.  Didn't get it myself until I read the blurb on the Great Escape site. The pistol is the giveaway 

Two new rogues: Jonathan Pain and Roy Magnum. Released April 25th, available for pre-order now:



www.greatescapegames.co.uk

[Ray Earle]

I wonder if it would be better to start a new thread on the frontier wars? Just a thought. 

Before this one gets locked. Just like the last one about the Australian frontier wars... 

[Kommando_J]

Before this one gets locked. Just like the last one about the Australian frontier wars... 

Pretty much, i've never got it really, pretty much every single conflict has bad behavior on both sides, any moral objections to playing/wargaming this would really be applicable to every single period.

I think as a non-Australian I just don't get it, what makes an aborigine ''worth more'' historically than any other indigenous peoples? all were mistreated but from what i've seen even mention the ''A'' word and it's colt navys at dawn.

[Constable Bertrand]

what makes an aborigine ''worth more'' historically than any other indigenous peoples?

That's it. No one people group is worth more than another. We are all valuable.

The problem is when invading people's try to wipe out rather populations rather than live along side the indigenous group. As a perspective, it just seems worse when the invaders have technically superior weaponry, and use that to kill far greater numbers.

We just need to be sensitive to past hurts and injustices, no matter what period we are playing. Give value to the people our miniatures represent, the problem is in gamining we put our morals aside and it's normally shoot first and kill everything.

Include an aboriginal tracker in a game chasing sheep rustlers, that's a great way to do it (like what DMH has done) include Roman and Celtic battles, German and French WWII battles.
Perhaps we should avoid:
Baby seal clubbing
genocide
holocaust and ghetto liquidation

Why would those be fun to play anyway?

Why would you want to play the first encounters between native Americans and settlers? Target practice is hardly a game. What makes the OW more interesting is when the native Americans later use guerilla tactics, and use the settlers weapons and fight toe to toe.

As an Australian I'm glad people want to inquire about our past and game the setting. I'm just concerned when the original population (who we have only just appologised to for our actions) is used as an enemy - because it will be a game of sticks verse guns.

People are valuable in and of themselves.
Matt.

[Admiral Benbow]

Apparently we are no longer talking about bushranging, conflicts with the law, nor about Dead Man's Hand. Considering that all the other DMH threads have been locked and this is the "official" DMH thread, I wonder if it would be better to start a new thread on the frontier wars? Just a thought. 

Indeed, please keep on track, folks. This is the DMH thread for discussing the new releases. If you would like to discuss the political dimensions of frontier wars or any cruelties caused during that conflict, please do that on an appropriate site in the net. There are many. Otherwise this thread will be locked.

[Kommando_J]

While I get the spirit behind the point no ghetto liquidation, partisans and partisan versus anti-partisan battles did play an important part in ww2 for instance, i'd point out as well the partisans themselves were no saints.

[Constable Bertrand]

the partisans themselves were no saints.

I can agree with that statement.

Indeed, please keep on track, folks. This is the DMH thread for discussing the new releases. ... Otherwise this thread will be locked.

Thanks for the warning, it's appreciated admiral.

So DMH, What new rules are rolled out with this release? Anything interesting? Cause the minis are.

Cheers
Matt.

[bong-67]

Hi,
I have to say that I think the Dead Man‘s Hand Down Under figures and sourcebook to be one of the best ideas to come along in a long time.  I'm desperately trying to resist not buying the book, the rules, and all of the figure sets but I'm sure 'll fail!  I'd be very interested in knowing more about the rules and the Down Under book too.
I also like the way that Great Escape Games went for a movie based look for their figure sets.  The Proposition is a very good film with a strong and distinctive look.  It doesn't really matter that that look is not too historically accurate as I think most non-australians have no idea what real bush rangers or colonial police would look like and I've only found a few images on the web.  Referencing a film makes the whole thing more accessible.
However, I have thought about how a Down Under project could be expanded.  I found an image from the cover of the Sam Neil version of Robbery Under Arms showing two police troopers.  If their uniforms are accurate then maybe figures could be converted from something like Natal Mounted Police  or British South Africa Police with ACW kepi head swaps?  
I also liked the picture earlier on this thread of Ben Hall in his straw wideawake.  Also, there are some good images on the web of Sam Neil as Captain Starlight wearing one.  I think the Foundry figure of Burton in the Darkest Africa explorer's pack might be a good match for this look.  Another idea I've had is to use Perry ACW rioters with guns with straw hat head swaps using heads in the Redoubt ACW range.
For more armed civilians I might use some from the Mutineer miniatures  Lucknow defenders sets.
All in all I'm finding the whole Down Under thing to be really useful and very stimulating so sorry for the long post.
All the best,
George.

[axabrax]

I'm thinking there might also be some good stuff in Brigade Games' Victorian range. It seems like basically the hat is the key-- you want Cowboys in different hats!  . Someone else also pointed out the Brick Lane Commune figs from IHMN.

In terms of rules, all we've seen is the Kelly Gang write up in the previews and the bushranger's special cards. As I've said in an earlier, buried, email, I think their lack of mobility due to the armor is a real hindrance in certain scenarios like the bank robbery. I'd like to see an option to only armor some of them, although that might screw up the game balance.

I'm curious to see how they write up not Quigley and John Hurt as I already ordered those figures too 

I've also been thinking about the possibility of coming up with some alternate tin corrugated roofs for my current Dead Mans hand buildings to swap out depending on the continent.