Help support TMP

"LSHM - Texas English Civil War (ECW) Battle Report" Topic

5 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.

Back to the English Civil War Message Board

699 hits since 11 May 2017
©1994-2018 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

torokchar Supporting Member of TMP11 May 2017 2:05 p.m. PST

Alan Spencer and Steve Miller from the Lone Star Historical Miniatures (LSHM) Club located in Texas met up in Dallas-Fort Worth for a game of Victory Without Quarter – here is his detailed battle report:












Timmo uk11 May 2017 2:41 p.m. PST

It looks and sounds like great fun was had great stuff.

When I played First Newbury we had a significant part of the battlefield covered by enclosures that had a dramatic effect on the real battle and saw some interesting tactics employed.

Codsticker17 May 2017 9:10 p.m. PST

Glad to see people have not forgotten this rule set. I played a couple of games of VWQ- I really enjoyed them. The only thing that I found a little puzzling was how often the artillery card came up.

Ostrowski Inactive Member22 May 2017 11:54 a.m. PST

Looks great, fun write up.

With ECW I feel more drawn to the Parliamentarians/Covenanters.
For ACW, more drawn to the CSA.

Are the Royalist cavaliers more aligned with the CSA and the Union with Parliament? Or vice versa!?

Deuce03 Inactive Member23 May 2017 5:49 p.m. PST

Trying to compare the ECW to any later war is a nightmare. It's hard enough trying to get one's head around it conceptually on its own terms. It's also hard to judge it without taking into account the benefit of hindsight.

It is relatively easy to cast the king as a tyrant determined to impose a strict divine right absolutist rule on the country. It's also easy to characterise Parliament as a bunch of power-crazed fanatics hell-bent on destroying all sources of authority in the country save themselves.

Both would have a nugget of truth; neither would tell the whole story.

The religious factor can't be underestimated. Really I think the ECWs should be considered in its context as the last phase of the European Wars of Religion.

Adding to the complication is that the common conception of king vs Parliament is misleading. While they were at odds at an institutional level, many members of Parliament (somewhere between a third and half) were royalists. I'm not 100% sure but I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out more MPs died fighting for the king than Parliament. What each side was fighting for seemed to change periodically. While Parliament might have started off claiming to fight for liberty, in some of the later wars it almost looks the other way round. The second war saw the Scottish army – the king's most implacable enemies from before the start of the first war – join his side to oppose their former allies?!

With that taken into account it's perhaps not surprising that the Parliamentary victory was a disaster for Parliament itself, and that in fairly short order it was overthrown by the forces it had arrayed for its own protection.

So, bluh. While we've done a good job of agreeing what the result of the civil war meant in retrospect (or at least we all agreed after 1688), I'm not convinced that's what was actually being fought over at the time. The politics of the era were peculiar and I think it's hard to take the ideology of either side and compare it to that of someone else in a different war, and hence trace any real consistency in sympathy between the ECW and ACW in terms of which side fires you up.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.