Slitherine

With my Yorkists pretty much complete I've been playing around with army lists and found what is IMO a bit of an anomaly.

Edward IV Yorkist king of England; well over 6 feet tall so a giant for that time, young, handsome, personable, liked by the common soldiery but with a fierce temper when crossed. Certainly not a man to be anyone's puppet as was proved when Warwick tried to control him, in long run it cost Warwick his life. Undefeated in four pitched battles (Mortimers Cross, Towton, Barnet and Tewkesbury) Edward is probably one of England's most underrated generals and there's no way this guy is going to be anything other than the C in C.

Richard Neville, Warwick The Kingmaker; despite his title of Earl of Warwick his main power base is in the north. Edward's youngest brother Richard of Gloucester (later good king Richard III) is educated in Warwick's residence at Middleham Castle here in North Yorkshire. Warwick is in effect in charge of the north of England after the upheavals of the first part of the Wars of the Roses. It's fairly plain that Warwick has enough indepedence of action to be an Ally General not a sub commander. His later actions against Edward prove this.

Look at the army list though and as an Ally General Warwick can not command his own Northern Border cavalry, spearmen, billmen or longbowmen. They have to be under the command of King Edward. I'd respectfully suggest this is an error.

A better way to have done it would be to have Northerners as an option for an Ally General but if taken that way they can't also be under any other general's command, thus avoiding two lots of them turning up.

AlanYork wrote:It's fairly plain that Warwick has enough indepedence of action to be an Ally General not a sub commander.

I would suggest that on the battlefield - i.e. what FoG represents - he was nothing other than what is represented by a sub-general.

His performance in my army at the BHGS Challenge earlier this year clearly proves this - ask Paul Cummins ...

....... ill get him, and his little dog too......

If your character of merit was as stubborn as you described him, then make him an allied field commander...

IMO, most of the medieval armies were made up of a CnC and his allied commanders. Mind you, I love the era, but the time period was filled with indivduals who were admired for their devious and ruthelss double-crossing. There are exceptions. They were few and far between.

eldiablito wrote: but the time period was filled with indivduals who were admired for their devious and ruthelss double-crossing

Only the perfidious english, surely?

The Duke of Burgundy abandoning the French when John the Fearless was assassinated, then Philip abandoning the English alliance once Jeanne turned up and started the decline.

Plus he later sold said Jeanne to the English rather than ransom her back to the French.

Pandulf of Capua, the 'wolf of the Abruzzi' changed sides and double crossed allies many times in 11th century Italy. Everyone eventually got fed up with him.

Any employer of the Catalan Grand Company - Byzantine Emperor Andronicus, Duke of Athens, the Alan George Gircon. They all paid a heavy price.

Perfidy is not a phenomenon limited to Albion.

paulburton wrote:
Perfidy is not a phenomenon limited to Albion.

We're just good at it. After 3 - "The English, the English, the English are best; I wouldn't give tuppence for all of the rest!" and so on

In the Catalan's case, surely it was perfidiousness by the employer, not the employee?