RE: Richard III

RE: Richard III (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion

Message

rodney727 -> RE: Richard III (2/7/2013 3:14:39 PM)
I didn't say it was true.... But I can't help to think there is some truth behind it. And you are right the non history folk who see programs such as these take it for fact. One fact they did get right however..the the view of the rich nobles who had every right to everything. Now back to Richard III. Was it not he who declared the two princes right to the thrown invalid? The boys were killed way before Henry VII took the crown on the battlefield. Maybe my British friends can help me out with this as I must confess I am not of much knowledge on said matter. quote: ORIGINAL: Punk Reaper The series the Tudors was fiction..... Bad fiction, unfortunately most people seem to take their history from crap tv shows and Hollywood... Yeh I'm looking at you Mel Gibson!

stockwellpete -> RE: Richard III (2/7/2013 3:26:16 PM)
I don't think Richard III was altogether innocent. He was loyal to Edward IV until he died in 1483, but then Richard moved very quickly and brutally to secure the throne for himself. Of course, this does not mean that we have to accept all the Tudor claims about him at face value either. But most medieval kings were a bit like gangsters really.

Empire101 -> RE: Richard III (2/7/2013 5:18:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: stockwellpete I don't think Richard III was altogether innocent. He was loyal to Edward IV until he died in 1483, but then Richard moved very quickly and brutally to secure the throne for himself. Of course, this does not mean that we have to accept all the Tudor claims about him at face value either. But most medieval kings were a bit like gangsters really. The whole notion that Richard III ordered the death's of the The Prince's in the Tower is a convenient Tudor sub plot to casting Richard as 'The Evil King', but there is not one jot of evidence to support this. It is true that Richard had the most to gain from the Prince's 'disappearance', but did he have anything to do with it? My instinct says no. Richard loved his brother Edward IV and his sons, and he took his duties of Lord Protector seriously after Edwards death. Let us not forget, that several years previously, Edward IV had his younger brother, George, murdered in the Tower for plotting against him, a fact that is sometimes overlooked. The rumours of Edward IV's illegitimacy ( after his birth which were quashed, and after his death ), were given very big wheels by his own mother Cecily Neville, who started a campaign to a) declare the Prince's in the Tower illegitimate, and b) to declare that it was Richard, not Edward who should have been King. One can easily see in the swirling backstabbing politics of the court one of Richards supporters quietly doing Cecily's or another powerful family members bidding, to clear the way for Richard. There was no way Cecily was going to let power slip from her fingers into Edwards wife hated family, the Woodville's

Chickenboy -> RE: Richard III (2/7/2013 5:30:12 PM)
I don't have a horse in this race, but is it beyond the pale to consider that, some 600 years ago, you may have had a real SOB for a king? All long-lived dynasties have had their share of winners and losers over time, including the papacy, other religious leaders, monarchs everywhere, and democratically elected officials. Why is it so hard to believe that Shakespeare may have had a point? From an outsider's perspective, making Richard III's legacy as 'misunderstood nice guy' just sounds like revisionist history. Unless there's some crystaline-clear, newly-uncovered (other than his bones) documents or historical study of which I'm unaware, it just doesn't seem worth the effort to whitewash his existing legacy. IS there universally embraced documentation that positively and incontrovertibly refutes his previous image?

stockwellpete -> RE: Richard III (2/7/2013 5:36:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Empire101 The whole notion that Richard III ordered the death's of the The Prince's in the Tower is a convenient Tudor sub plot to casting Richard as 'The Evil King', but there is not one jot of evidence to support this. It is true that Richard had the most to gain from the Prince's 'disappearance', but did he have anything to do with it? My instinct says no. I was actually thinking more of the fates of Anthony Woodville and William Hastings in 1483 shortly after the death of Edward IV. As for the two princes, my instinct says "yes".

Empire101 -> RE: Richard III (2/7/2013 5:54:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy I don't have a horse in this race, but is it beyond the pale to consider that, some 600 years ago, you may have had a real SOB for a king? All long-lived dynasties have had their share of winners and losers over time, including the papacy, other religious leaders, monarchs everywhere, and democratically elected officials. Why is it so hard to believe that Shakespeare may have had a point? From an outsider's perspective, making Richard III's legacy as 'misunderstood nice guy' just sounds like revisionist history. Unless there's some crystaline-clear, newly-uncovered (other than his bones) documents or historical study of which I'm unaware, it just doesn't seem worth the effort to whitewash his existing legacy. IS there universally embraced documentation that positively and incontrovertibly refutes his previous image? With SOB, do you mean sobbing or is it an acryonism for something else? Shakespeare certainly would'nt have written a play to be seen by anybody that would cast any doubt on the legitimacy of the Tudors.....he was'nt going to commit suicide. So the facts have been effectively whitewashed ( your words ) anyway, long before I came on the scene. His existing legacy ( left mainly by the Tudors ), is that he was a 'bad' King, when contemporary evidence from that time point in the opposite direction. The historical evidence from that time points to a more enlightend monarch than Henry Tudors character assassination. They even altered his official portrait for God's sake, to make him look more 'evil'

Empire101 -> RE: Richard III (2/7/2013 6:09:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: stockwellpete quote: ORIGINAL: Empire101 The whole notion that Richard III ordered the death's of the The Prince's in the Tower is a convenient Tudor sub plot to casting Richard as 'The Evil King', but there is not one jot of evidence to support this. It is true that Richard had the most to gain from the Prince's 'disappearance', but did he have anything to do with it? My instinct says no. I was actually thinking more of the fates of Anthony Woodville and William Hastings in 1483 shortly after the death of Edward IV. As for the two princes, my instinct says "yes". Anthony Woodville was part of the despised Woodville family, and had fought for the Lancastrian cause, so Richard would have suspected his loyalty. Hastings of course is more problematic. Did he conspire against Richard, or was he an obstacle in Richard's path that had to be got rid of? We may probably never know the full story. Medieval politics were quite brutal, and all King's and Queen's dealt with enemies very harshly in those days, but as the old saying goes;'...dead men tell no tales...'[;)]

Chickenboy -> RE: Richard III (2/7/2013 6:30:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Empire101 quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy I don't have a horse in this race, but is it beyond the pale to consider that, some 600 years ago, you may have had a real SOB for a king? All long-lived dynasties have had their share of winners and losers over time, including the papacy, other religious leaders, monarchs everywhere, and democratically elected officials. Why is it so hard to believe that Shakespeare may have had a point? From an outsider's perspective, making Richard III's legacy as 'misunderstood nice guy' just sounds like revisionist history. Unless there's some crystaline-clear, newly-uncovered (other than his bones) documents or historical study of which I'm unaware, it just doesn't seem worth the effort to whitewash his existing legacy. IS there universally embraced documentation that positively and incontrovertibly refutes his previous image? With SOB, do you mean sobbing or is it an acryonism for something else? Shakespeare certainly would'nt have written a play to be seen by anybody that would cast any doubt on the legitimacy of the Tudors.....he was'nt going to commit suicide. So the facts have been effectively whitewashed ( your words ) anyway, long before I came on the scene. His existing legacy ( left mainly by the Tudors ), is that he was a 'bad' King, when contemporary evidence from that time point in the opposite direction. The historical evidence from that time points to a more enlightend monarch than Henry Tudors character assassination. They even altered his official portrait for God's sake, to make him look more 'evil' Hi Empire, Thanks for the response. By SOB-I meant an acronym for a son of a...something. You can figure out the balance. We've seen our share of revisionist history on this side of the pond, of course. In general, I tend to discount the efforts of those to revise the historical point of view / status quo after some modern historical event, UNLESS there is compelling evidence to repudiate the existing assumptions. Altered portraits and Shakespeare's personal animus towards Richard III don't vindicate the assumed historical balance, in my opinion. Can you point me towards this exculpatory historic evidence (a summary, please) that hasn't been biased by the Tudor's character assasination? I'm open to the possibility that the Tudors may have had the right measure of the man and that Richard III apologists are simply expressing their revulsion of all things Tudor. I'm also open to the possibility that the Tudor's wanted to re-write history by painting Richard III in an ill light and thereby justifying their backstabbing and regicide.

warspite1 -> RE: Richard III (2/7/2013 7:22:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Empire101 quote: ORIGINAL: Punk Reaper The series the Tudors was fiction..... Bad fiction, unfortunately most people seem to take their history from crap tv shows and Hollywood... Yeh I'm looking at you Mel Gibson! +1. Braveheart being the most obvious pack of nonsense. It should have been called BraveFart, as the film was just a load of hot air. Back to Richard. Richard has been treated badly by history, and his vile murderer and usurper Henry Tudor had a very shaky claim to the the throne through his father, John of Gaunt. Richard was a brave and noble King, who died as he had lived....valiantly. Let us hope he is given a State Funeral and that history is re-adjusted back to fact and not the fairytale nonsense of Shakespeare's play, which I loathe. Richards last reputed words on this earth were 'Traitors, Traitors, Traitors'!! before succumbing to the fatal blow. The desperation and betrayal of those words echo down the centuries. Here was one of our warrior kings who almost got to the coward Henry Tudor personally, fighting his way through his escort, killing his standard bearer before being unhorsed, and eventually cut down. Det In Requiescant In Pace [image]local://upfiles/29250/F27423B1C2944ADC8016EA408A291260.jpg[/image] warspite1 I find all this fascinating - not least that there seems to me to be so many people who have a real hard-on for the idea that Richard III was so badly wronged. I understand from the TV program that many members of the Richard III society were adamant (before the skeleton was found) that Richard III did not have a deformity of the spine and that that too was a Tudor myth. As for me I have no idea, and certainly the fact that Richard's body has been found does not change anything at this stage, but I would love to know more about this now. One thing I do know - he was our King and Head of State and he deserves a state funeral.

Empire101 -> RE: Richard III (2/7/2013 7:38:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy Hi Empire, Thanks for the response. By SOB-I meant an acronym for a son of a...something. You can figure out the balance. We've seen our share of revisionist history on this side of the pond, of course. In general, I tend to discount the efforts of those to revise the historical point of view / status quo after some modern historical event, UNLESS there is compelling evidence to repudiate the existing assumptions. Altered portraits and Shakespeare's personal animus towards Richard III don't vindicate the assumed historical balance, in my opinion. Can you point me towards this exculpatory historic evidence (a summary, please) that hasn't been biased by the Tudor's character assasination? I'm open to the possibility that the Tudors may have had the right measure of the man and that Richard III apologists are simply expressing their revulsion of all things Tudor. I'm also open to the possibility that the Tudor's wanted to re-write history by painting Richard III in an ill light and thereby justifying their backstabbing and regicide. Son of a bitch....of course!![:D] As to this debate being part of some revisionist plot to rewrite history, I say pah!! to you sir! Its not 'revisionist', its trying to get to the facts, not rewriting history to conform with modern trends or culture. I shall re-examine my sources and get back to you asp with the facts and references, pronto

Empire101 -> RE: Richard III (2/7/2013 7:43:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Empire101 quote: ORIGINAL: Punk Reaper The series the Tudors was fiction..... Bad fiction, unfortunately most people seem to take their history from crap tv shows and Hollywood... Yeh I'm looking at you Mel Gibson! +1. Braveheart being the most obvious pack of nonsense. It should have been called BraveFart, as the film was just a load of hot air. Back to Richard. Richard has been treated badly by history, and his vile murderer and usurper Henry Tudor had a very shaky claim to the the throne through his father, John of Gaunt. Richard was a brave and noble King, who died as he had lived....valiantly. Let us hope he is given a State Funeral and that history is re-adjusted back to fact and not the fairytale nonsense of Shakespeare's play, which I loathe. Richards last reputed words on this earth were 'Traitors, Traitors, Traitors'!! before succumbing to the fatal blow. The desperation and betrayal of those words echo down the centuries. Here was one of our warrior kings who almost got to the coward Henry Tudor personally, fighting his way through his escort, killing his standard bearer before being unhorsed, and eventually cut down. Det In Requiescant In Pace [image]local://upfiles/29250/F27423B1C2944ADC8016EA408A291260.jpg[/image] warspite1 I find all this fascinating - not least that there seems to me to be so many people who have a real hard-on for the idea that Richard III was so badly wronged. I understand from the TV program that many members of the Richard III society were adamant (before the skeleton was found) that Richard III did not have a deformity of the spine and that that too was a Tudor myth. As for me I have no idea, and certainly the fact that Richard's body has been found does not change anything at this stage, but I would love to know more about this now. One thing I do know - he was our King and Head of State and he deserves a state funeral. I thought you sir, of all people, would be 'up' on this tumultuous part of our history!!!! The last 'English' King to sit on the throne of England!!![&:] I'm speechless!!!!!![:D]

warspite1 -> RE: Richard III (2/7/2013 7:54:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Empire101 quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Empire101 quote: ORIGINAL: Punk Reaper The series the Tudors was fiction..... Bad fiction, unfortunately most people seem to take their history from crap tv shows and Hollywood... Yeh I'm looking at you Mel Gibson! +1. Braveheart being the most obvious pack of nonsense. It should have been called BraveFart, as the film was just a load of hot air. Back to Richard. Richard has been treated badly by history, and his vile murderer and usurper Henry Tudor had a very shaky claim to the the throne through his father, John of Gaunt. Richard was a brave and noble King, who died as he had lived....valiantly. Let us hope he is given a State Funeral and that history is re-adjusted back to fact and not the fairytale nonsense of Shakespeare's play, which I loathe. Richards last reputed words on this earth were 'Traitors, Traitors, Traitors'!! before succumbing to the fatal blow. The desperation and betrayal of those words echo down the centuries. Here was one of our warrior kings who almost got to the coward Henry Tudor personally, fighting his way through his escort, killing his standard bearer before being unhorsed, and eventually cut down. Det In Requiescant In Pace [image]local://upfiles/29250/F27423B1C2944ADC8016EA408A291260.jpg[/image] warspite1 I find all this fascinating - not least that there seems to me to be so many people who have a real hard-on for the idea that Richard III was so badly wronged. I understand from the TV program that many members of the Richard III society were adamant (before the skeleton was found) that Richard III did not have a deformity of the spine and that that too was a Tudor myth. As for me I have no idea, and certainly the fact that Richard's body has been found does not change anything at this stage, but I would love to know more about this now. One thing I do know - he was our King and Head of State and he deserves a state funeral. I thought you sir, of all people, would be 'up' on this tumultuous part of our history!!!! The last 'English' King to sit on the throne of England!!![&:] I'm speechless!!!!!![:D] warspite1 No, I'm afraid that was old mother warspite's bag - there was nothing she couldn't tell you about the English Royal Family... Boy at times like this it makes me realise how much I miss her [:(] I get my love of history from her, but I must confess I do like a few more battleships, tanks and s*** in my history lessons than what the Plantagenents / Tudors could provide [:)]

Chickenboy -> RE: Richard III (2/7/2013 8:01:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Empire101 I shall re-examine my sources and get back to you asp with the facts and references, pronto That's all I can ask. Thanks.

Empire101 -> RE: Richard III (2/7/2013 8:01:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Empire101 quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Empire101 quote: ORIGINAL: Punk Reaper The series the Tudors was fiction..... Bad fiction, unfortunately most people seem to take their history from crap tv shows and Hollywood... Yeh I'm looking at you Mel Gibson! +1. Braveheart being the most obvious pack of nonsense. It should have been called BraveFart, as the film was just a load of hot air. Back to Richard. Richard has been treated badly by history, and his vile murderer and usurper Henry Tudor had a very shaky claim to the the throne through his father, John of Gaunt. Richard was a brave and noble King, who died as he had lived....valiantly. Let us hope he is given a State Funeral and that history is re-adjusted back to fact and not the fairytale nonsense of Shakespeare's play, which I loathe. Richards last reputed words on this earth were 'Traitors, Traitors, Traitors'!! before succumbing to the fatal blow. The desperation and betrayal of those words echo down the centuries. Here was one of our warrior kings who almost got to the coward Henry Tudor personally, fighting his way through his escort, killing his standard bearer before being unhorsed, and eventually cut down. Det In Requiescant In Pace [image]local://upfiles/29250/F27423B1C2944ADC8016EA408A291260.jpg[/image] warspite1 I find all this fascinating - not least that there seems to me to be so many people who have a real hard-on for the idea that Richard III was so badly wronged. I understand from the TV program that many members of the Richard III society were adamant (before the skeleton was found) that Richard III did not have a deformity of the spine and that that too was a Tudor myth. As for me I have no idea, and certainly the fact that Richard's body has been found does not change anything at this stage, but I would love to know more about this now. One thing I do know - he was our King and Head of State and he deserves a state funeral. I thought you sir, of all people, would be 'up' on this tumultuous part of our history!!!! The last 'English' King to sit on the throne of England!!![&:] I'm speechless!!!!!![:D] warspite1 No, I'm afraid that was old mother warspite's bag - there was nothing she couldn't tell you about the English Royal Family... Boy at times like this it makes me realise how much I miss her [:(] I get my love of history from her, but I must confess I do like a few more battleships, tanks and s*** in my history lessons than what the Plantagenents / Tudors could provide [:)] Surely Warspite, the thought of all those heavily armoured knights thundering towards the enemy in full armour, their pennants streaming in the wind, the thought of man against man in some horrendous swirling mass of hacking, slashing and gouging in a sea of mud and blood, as the valiant efforts of one knight succumb to another,... must excite the senses sir?? It must get your blood up.....just a little?

Empire101 -> RE: Richard III (2/7/2013 8:03:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy quote: ORIGINAL: Empire101 I shall re-examine my sources and get back to you asp with the facts and references, pronto That's all I can ask. Thanks. It will be my pleasure sir![:)]

warspite1 -> RE: Richard III (2/7/2013 8:07:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Empire101 quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Empire101 quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Empire101 quote: ORIGINAL: Punk Reaper The series the Tudors was fiction..... Bad fiction, unfortunately most people seem to take their history from crap tv shows and Hollywood... Yeh I'm looking at you Mel Gibson! +1. Braveheart being the most obvious pack of nonsense. It should have been called BraveFart, as the film was just a load of hot air. Back to Richard. Richard has been treated badly by history, and his vile murderer and usurper Henry Tudor had a very shaky claim to the the throne through his father, John of Gaunt. Richard was a brave and noble King, who died as he had lived....valiantly. Let us hope he is given a State Funeral and that history is re-adjusted back to fact and not the fairytale nonsense of Shakespeare's play, which I loathe. Richards last reputed words on this earth were 'Traitors, Traitors, Traitors'!! before succumbing to the fatal blow. The desperation and betrayal of those words echo down the centuries. Here was one of our warrior kings who almost got to the coward Henry Tudor personally, fighting his way through his escort, killing his standard bearer before being unhorsed, and eventually cut down. Det In Requiescant In Pace [image]local://upfiles/29250/F27423B1C2944ADC8016EA408A291260.jpg[/image] warspite1 I find all this fascinating - not least that there seems to me to be so many people who have a real hard-on for the idea that Richard III was so badly wronged. I understand from the TV program that many members of the Richard III society were adamant (before the skeleton was found) that Richard III did not have a deformity of the spine and that that too was a Tudor myth. As for me I have no idea, and certainly the fact that Richard's body has been found does not change anything at this stage, but I would love to know more about this now. One thing I do know - he was our King and Head of State and he deserves a state funeral. I thought you sir, of all people, would be 'up' on this tumultuous part of our history!!!! The last 'English' King to sit on the throne of England!!![&:] I'm speechless!!!!!![:D] warspite1 No, I'm afraid that was old mother warspite's bag - there was nothing she couldn't tell you about the English Royal Family... Boy at times like this it makes me realise how much I miss her [:(] I get my love of history from her, but I must confess I do like a few more battleships, tanks and s*** in my history lessons than what the Plantagenents / Tudors could provide [:)] Surely Warspite, the thought of all those heavily armoured knights thundering towards the enemy in full armour, their pennants streaming in the wind, the thought of man against man in some horrendous swirling mass of hacking, slashing and gouging in a sea of mud and blood, as the valiant efforts of one knight succumb to another,... must excite the senses sir?? It must get your blood up.....just a little? warspite1 Well now you describe it like that I'm quite turned on [X(] Maybe this Richard III stuff will help me get more interested, but at the moment, warfare - proper warfare - starts with the Napoleonic era and ends at Nagasaki (with special allowance for Korea and the Falklands).

Empire101 -> RE: Richard III (2/7/2013 8:27:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 Well now you describe it like that I'm quite turned on [X(] Maybe this Richard III stuff will help me get more interested, but at the moment, warfare - proper warfare - starts with the Napoleonic era and ends at Nagasaki (with special allowance for Korea and the Falklands). What about Cannae, Harlech, Blenheim, Towton etc etc? I'll be round later on my trusty steed in my chainmail....... [image]http://i1155.photobucket.com/albums/p543/Empire101/Odds%20and%20Ends/BosworthField_zps51248c23.jpg[/image]

warspite1 -> RE: Richard III (2/7/2013 8:34:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Empire101 quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 Well now you describe it like that I'm quite turned on [X(] Maybe this Richard III stuff will help me get more interested, but at the moment, warfare - proper warfare - starts with the Napoleonic era and ends at Nagasaki (with special allowance for Korea and the Falklands). What about Cannae, Harlech, Blenheim, Towton etc etc? I'll be round later on my trusty steed in my chainmail....... [image]http://i1155.photobucket.com/albums/p543/Empire101/Odds%20and%20Ends/BosworthField_zps51248c23.jpg[/image] warspite1 I got into Roman times a little thanks to Rome Total War, but struggled to follow that up (I tried reading Rubicon but it was all a bit too difficult) [&:] I guess I like "Deranged johnny foreigner person tries to take over the world and the British save the day" type scenario e.g. Napoleonic War, WWII and latterly WWI.

Empire101 -> RE: Richard III (2/7/2013 8:46:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 I guess I like "Deranged johnny foreigner person tries to take over the world and the British save the day" type scenario e.g. Napoleonic War, WWII and latterly WWI. Only a maniac or Johnny Foreigner would'nt subscribe to that view of history sir!!? Reminds me of a certain mindset peculiar to the British;- Captain Darling: So you see, Blackadder, Field Marshall Haig is most anxious to eliminate all these German spies. General Melchett: Filthy hun weasels, fighting their dirty underhand war! Captain Darling: And fortunately, one of our spies... General Melchett: Splendid fellows, brave heroes risking life and limb for Blighty!

sullafelix -> RE: Richard III (2/7/2013 9:45:48 PM)
George more than deserved his tub of wine. He had been a traitor several times over before he was finally killed. No one who was as bad off physically as Shakespeare makes him, could have fought in all the battles Richard did and wield a shield and a battleaxe. I am a Richardist, but even I have a problem with the princes in the tower. The total lack of any writing about them nor really a peep at the time of their demise is staggering. Of course the Tudor's used it as fodder but I have never seen any other mention of it at the time. Before Richard's death there is a huge gap of silence about them. The percentage of chidren their age that just died from natural causes at the time is staggering. Why wasn't it just let out that they died from the "pox" etc., instead of silence. This more than anything makes me believe that they were done away with. Even older histories written circa 1900-1960 ( possible even earlier ) sometimes were on the side of Richard being maltreated by the winners history. So I don't think you could say the idea is " revisionist ".

Chickenboy -> RE: Richard III (2/7/2013 9:53:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Empire101 quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 Well now you describe it like that I'm quite turned on [X(] Maybe this Richard III stuff will help me get more interested, but at the moment, warfare - proper warfare - starts with the Napoleonic era and ends at Nagasaki (with special allowance for Korea and the Falklands). What about Cannae, Harlech, Blenheim, Towton etc etc? I'll be round later on my trusty steed in my chainmail....... [image]http://i1155.photobucket.com/albums/p543/Empire101/Odds%20and%20Ends/BosworthField_zps51248c23.jpg[/image] warspite1 I got into Roman times a little thanks to Rome Total War, but struggled to follow that up (I tried reading Rubicon but it was all a bit too difficult) [&:] I guess I like "Deranged johnny foreigner person tries to take over the world and the Americans save the day" type scenario e.g. WWII and latterly WWI. Fixed that for you, mate. [8D]

warspite1 -> RE: Richard III (2/8/2013 5:32:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Empire101 quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 Well now you describe it like that I'm quite turned on [X(] Maybe this Richard III stuff will help me get more interested, but at the moment, warfare - proper warfare - starts with the Napoleonic era and ends at Nagasaki (with special allowance for Korea and the Falklands). What about Cannae, Harlech, Blenheim, Towton etc etc? I'll be round later on my trusty steed in my chainmail....... [image]http://i1155.photobucket.com/albums/p543/Empire101/Odds%20and%20Ends/BosworthField_zps51248c23.jpg[/image] warspite1 I got into Roman times a little thanks to Rome Total War, but struggled to follow that up (I tried reading Rubicon but it was all a bit too difficult) [&:] I guess I like "Deranged johnny foreigner person tries to take over the world and the Americans save the day" type scenario e.g. WWII and latterly WWI. Fixed that for you, mate. [8D] warspite1 Hee Hee - wondered who would react to that [:)]

wodin -> RE: Richard III (2/8/2013 7:43:54 AM)
Warspite...tut...tut....I too bypassed Korea..Until I read a book..then I realised my mistake..

Empire101 -> RE: Richard III (2/8/2013 11:28:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sulla05 George more than deserved his tub of wine. He had been a traitor several times over before he was finally killed. No one who was as bad off physically as Shakespeare makes him, could have fought in all the battles Richard did and wield a shield and a battleaxe. I am a Richardist, but even I have a problem with the princes in the tower. The total lack of any writing about them nor really a peep at the time of their demise is staggering. Of course the Tudor's used it as fodder but I have never seen any other mention of it at the time. Before Richard's death there is a huge gap of silence about them. The percentage of chidren their age that just died from natural causes at the time is staggering. Why wasn't it just let out that they died from the "pox" etc., instead of silence. This more than anything makes me believe that they were done away with. Even older histories written circa 1900-1960 ( possible even earlier ) sometimes were on the side of Richard being maltreated by the winners history. So I don't think you could say the idea is " revisionist ". Good points there Sulla. George had repaid his brothers love only with plotting and treachery, so Edward IV had to act in the end. George got his just desserts. I too have a problem with the Princes, and years ago I was firmly of the opinion that Richard just did away with them to cement his claim to the throne. But now, although I still think the Prince's came to a horrible end, I am of the opinion that one of Richards supporters did them in, and then Richard was presented with a fait accompli so to speak. My favourite suspect is Cecily Neville, Richards mother. An extremely clever and powerful woman in her own right, she so hated the idea of power falling into the hands of the Woodvilles that I feel she would have contemplated murder to put another of her sons on the throne. Her campaign to declare the Prince's in the tower illegitimate by the fact that Edward IV, her own son was illegitimate speaks volumes.

wodin -> RE: Richard III (2/8/2013 11:40:53 AM)
from a young age I was fascinated with Knights and castles so it's surprising I never wargame the period and have never really studied the period (really all I've done is watch documentaries like The History of Britain etc etc). I think it's something I must do at some point.

Joe D. -> RE: Richard III (2/8/2013 11:57:26 AM)
Will this re-ignite the War of the Roses? British Cities Battle for Richard III's Remains Leicester, York stake rival claims (Newser) � Centuries after the Wars of the Roses, Richard III is still dividing Britain. Two cities are feuding over who gets to rebury newly-discovered remains said to be his. Leicester, home to the parking lot where the bones were found, says it's the rightful owner; York, meanwhile, argues that the king represented the House of York, grew up in the city, and said he wanted to be buried there ... http://www.newser.com/story/162463/british-cities-battle-for-richard-iiis-remains.html?utm_source=part&utm_medium=united&utm_campaign=rss_3_2

wodin -> RE: Richard III (2/8/2013 12:16:09 PM)
It's WAR!!!...well in a solicitors office I expect.. quote: ORIGINAL: Joe D. Will this re-ignite the War of the Roses? British Cities Battle for Richard III's Remains Leicester, York stake rival claims (Newser) � Centuries after the Wars of the Roses, Richard III is still dividing Britain. Two cities are feuding over who gets to rebury newly-discovered remains said to be his. Leicester, home to the parking lot where the bones were found, says it's the rightful owner; York, meanwhile, argues that the king represented the House of York, grew up in the city, and said he wanted to be buried there ... http://www.newser.com/story/162463/british-cities-battle-for-richard-iiis-remains.html?utm_source=part&utm_medium=united&utm_campaign=rss_3_2

catwhoorg -> RE: Richard III (2/8/2013 12:33:49 PM)
York has enough history sites, so much so its more than a day to visit even the major ones. Leicester needs the help, let him stay there. [:D] (as for gaming in the period, Kingmaker was a great draw at my old wargames club. Quick enough for an evening, and very social)

Empire101 -> RE: Richard III (2/8/2013 12:38:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wodin from a young age I was fascinated with Knights and castles so it's surprising I never wargame the period and have never really studied the period (really all I've done is watch documentaries like The History of Britain etc etc). I think it's something I must do at some point. It is a fascinating period of history Wodin. There was an SPI game that I played many many years ago called 'Empire's of the Middle Ages', way ahead of its time. Unfortunately it needed 5-7 players sitting round a table which I only managed to do a couple of times. But it was TREMENDOUS fun!!![:D] [image]http://i1155.photobucket.com/albums/p543/Empire101/Art%20and%20Album%20Covers/SPIEmpiresoftheMiddleAges_zpsa6f7b45f.jpg[/image]

Empire101 -> RE: Richard III (2/8/2013 12:40:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: catwhoorg York has enough history sites, so much so its more than a day to visit even the major ones. Leicester needs the help, let him stay there. [:D] (as for gaming in the period, Kingmaker was a great draw at my old wargames club. Quick enough for an evening, and very social) He should go to Westminster Abbey!!!![;)] Ah, Kingmaker.....(nostalgic sigh).....wonderful!![:)]

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.59375