The English Civil War took place between 1641 and 1651, although as a historical event it really did not end until 1660.  During that time there were actually three wars – the First (1642-46), Second (1648-49), and Third (1649-51) Civil Wars – the execution of the King (1649), a short-lived republic (1649-53, 1659-60), the Protectorate (1653-59), and finally the Restoration of the monarchy in 1660.  The society of the British Isles was thrown into chaos, governments came and went, and a lot of people suffered.  The effects of the conflict were far reaching and are still being felt today.  For instance, 15-25% percent of the population of Ireland died and the war led directly to the centuries of conflict and religious strife that has plagued the Emerald Isle ever since.

Causes of the War

At its heart the English Civil War was about the respective roles of the King and Parliament, the relationship between English, Scotland, and Ireland, and finally social strife between Protestants and Catholics.

The king at the time was Charles I (1600-49), the second monarch of the Stuart dynasty.  The Stuarts had ruled Scotland for generations, but England only from 1603 when Charles’ father James took the throne after the Tudor Elizabeth I died childless.  Physically small and suffering from a lifelong stutter, he grew up to be a prickly, haughty, and fully aristocratic personality who believed deeply in the Divine Right of Kings.  He was a man better suited to be a ruler than politician, but had the misfortune to be king of a country with a comparatively strong parliament.  His autocratic rule and disinterest in compromise slowly poisoned relations between the king and his parliament, but it was two major issues that primarily led to a break between the two.

The English Civil War?  Who Cares?  I know what you are thinking – an article on some long ago conflict with primitive technology and people dressed oddly?  What does it have to do with anything current, let alone Games Workshop gaming?  Let me answer the second question first – there are many links between GW and historical miniatures gaming, from those who work/have worked for the company to the fact that Warhammer Fantasy is in many ways just historical miniatures with different names and some magic thrown in.  Likewise, since it is Warhammer Historicals it is using the Warhammer brand.  As for the second the importance of the English Civil War(s) lies in the effect it’s had on our modern systems of government and democracy.  Both Great Britain and the United States (among others) can trace a lot of its “constitutional” ideals back to the period of the conflict.  It went a long way toward resolving not only the relationship of King with Parliament, but also what it meant to be a citizen in a democracy.  Think of it this way – while the connection for anyone from Great Britain (or the Commonwealth) is obvious, it is nearly as strong for the United States.  Remember that for the Founding Fathers the English Civil War was a relatively recent event.  Benjamin Franklin was born just 46 years after the Restoration and for him and many of his ultimately rebellious contemporaries the events of the Civil War were as relevant to them as the two World Wars are to us.  Thus, the English Civil War and its effects had an important formative influence on the U.S. constitution.

The first was that for many years Charles ruled without parliament meeting at all.  At that time it only met whenever the king called it into session, but after disputes in the early part of his reign he simply dismissed parliament and wouldn’t reconvene it.  That left him in something of a bind as it was parliament that traditionally controlled the purse strings to pay for the workings of government.  To get around this Charles came up with a number of different strategies mostly utilizing old, all-but-forgotten laws which allowed him to collect some of the money he needed.  These measures were widely unpopular and fed the growing feeling that Charles was in fact a tyrant ruling without the consent of the people (well, at least the important people).

Yet, it was the other great issue that ultimately triggered the war – Charles interest in moving the churches of England and Scotland toward a more traditional direction that returned some of the pomp and circumstance lost since the reformation.  In a Protestant land rife with what by modern standards would be called religious bigotry these changes were commonly seen as the first step in moving the British Isles back toward hated Catholic control.  The fact that Charles had married a French princess with the stated aim of bringing back Catholicism didn’t help things.  Nor did Charles’ typically heavy handed approach to the matter.

Things came to a head in 1639 when in reaction to the attempted imposition of a new prayer book on the Scottish church the region rose in revolt.  The cash strapped Charles found it hard to respond forcefully to this threat and so finally, after eleven years of personal rule, recalled parliament.  However, instead of a compliant political body ready to help defend English honor this “Short” parliament instead spent its time attempting to air the numerous grievances it had collected over the previous decade.  Exasperated, Charles once more dismissed parliament and attempted to deal with the Scots alone.  The result was a humiliating defeat that forced him to yet again recall Parliament to gain the funds he had promised the Scots in return for peace. 

This “Long” parliament (named so because it would stay in session throughout the wars) picked up exactly where it had left off.  At first Charles acceded to its wishes, forgoing many of the sources of revenue he had used during the years of personal rule and accepting changes to his religious policies (in particular, he ended up gaining support from the Scots by giving them most everything they had originally gone to war to secure).  Yet, this did not mollify parliament.  When in 1641 the Irish rose in rebellion the parliament refuse to give the king control over the army in large part because they feared he might just turn around and use it against them.  There were also rumors that Charles had helped engineer the uprising for just such a purpose.

The king had had enough – when a rumor spread that the parliament was on the verge of impeaching his Catholic wife Charles sent his men to arrest a key five of its members.  Entering the meeting chamber itself Charles asked where the men might be (they had skipped out right ahead of his troops) only for the speaker of the house to famously reply, ”May it please your Majesty, I have neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak in this place but as the House is pleased to direct me, whose servant I am here.” 

The king had gone too far – his action seemed to confirm the parliament’s fears that he was a tyrant, while its failure signaled that he was weak enough to be challenged.  Feeble attempts at rapprochement failed and the two sides – the Royalists and Parliament – organized for war.

The Course of the Civil War(s)

Technically speaking there were three English Civil Wars (their dates are listed above), but they tend to be lumped together into a single larger conflict.  By far it is the First Civil War that is seen as the primary struggle, in large part due to the fact that just which side might win was truly undecided.  However, once losing the first go around the Royalists were at a serious disadvantage in the following two struggles when compared to the victorious parliamentary forces.  

The first great battle of the Civil War was at Edgehill in October 1642.  It should have been a Royalist victory, but instead turned into a draw when Charles’ superior cavalry went charging off after their defeated Parliamentary equivalents rather than regrouping to inflict a coup de grace on the enemy army as a whole.  This failure turned the war into more of a slogging match that would go on for four long years.

There were plenty of victories and defeats for each side, but generally speaking the war started off well for Charles only to go sour over time.  At his height the king controlled perhaps half of England, but started to lose territory toward the end of 1642.  A decisive defeat came at the Battle of Marston Moor where the Royalists lost to a combined force of Parliamentarians and Scots.  The result was that Charles forfeited the north of England.  However, the inability of his enemies to take proper advantage of their victory allowed the king to continue to resist into 1645.

It was during this time that the other man most associated with the period of the Civil War came to prominence:  Oliver Cromwell.  Born in 1599 he seems to have been something of a ne’er-do-well in early life until undergoing a religious conversion in his mid thirties.  Now a devout Puritan he was a member of both the Short and Long Parliaments and when war broke out turned himself into a cavalry commander.  He raised his own troop of men – the “Ironsides” – and gained a reputation for success over the course of the first few years of the war. However, it was leading the attack that won the day at Marston Moor that truly made him famous.  Because of this, when Parliament decided to try a different approach to fighting the war after the frustrations of 1644, Cromwell was in position to influence and then command the force that would ultimately lead him to become Lord Protector – The New Model Army.

More to come…

The short answer is “not really.”

(Ah, that was an easy article!)



This is not to say that it wouldn’t work.  It pretty much is guaranteed to do so as the basic design and technology has been tried before.  There isn’t anything inherently impossible about the Leman Russ design (assuming lascannons and plasma weapons are ultimately possible – a good bet).  What is a problem is that the design isn’t very effective.  It has a number of serious deficiencies that one shouldn’t find in a design that is supposedly tried and true over very long periods of time.

The most readily apparent example on the Leman Russ is its tracks.  They extend all the way around the outside much like an early Mark I/V World War One British tank.  In fact, the Leman Russ design pays more than a slight homage to this historical vehicle.  For that reason alone it’s not hard to believe the Russ would actually be able to move around, yet there is a reason why the Mark V tread design did not serve as the model for what came later.  For one thing the tracks are needlessly exposed, making them comparative easy targets.  The treads on a tank are perhaps the most vulnerable part of the war machine.  One good shot by even a moderately powerful weapon and suddenly the tank is going nowhere.  That’s why it makes sense to hide the tracks as much as possible behind armor plates or even just from the sight of the enemy.  No point in making the bad guy’s task any simpler.

Yet, there is an even deeper issue with the tracks on a Leman Russ – or, more specifically, how the treads attach to the rest of the vehicle.  Namely, they do so directly without the presence of any suspension.  That is a big, big problem.
Suspensions are, among other things, used on all modern vehicles to aid in smoothing out the ride and improving handling.  Without one both are going to suffer.  Control is going to be an issue as every possible uneven surface that might lift or lower one side of the machine will tend to pull it in other directions than perhaps the tankers would prefer.  It also makes it more likely they might get stuck or even if they aren’t careful tip over.  More subtly, when they go over obstacles without a suspension the tank will tend to rise up or lean at high angles.  This in turn exposes the less well armored portions of the tank thereby leaving it vulnerable to a wider range of weapons.

Even worse than this is how the absence of a suspension means that every last bump or crash will be transmitted directly to the rest of the tank.  Remember that among other traits tanks are meant to be cross-country vehicles, country that tends to be rather bumpy.  Without a suspension in-between to mitigate the effects of all that rough terrain both the tank and the people inside are going to have a hard time enduring the trip.

When people talk about tanks they tend to concentrate on how well they do in face-to-face combat.  How thick is the armor or how big is the main gun?  What tends to be missed is that while combat may be the most exciting bit, it’s also only a comparatively tiny amount of the total time the tank and its crew spend together.  Livability is in its own way just as important as potency on the battlefield.



A British Mark I/V tank was in its own way a revolutionary invention.  It certainly aided the Allies in winning the war.  However, it was in some ways as much a menace to those that manned it as the Germans it faced.  The engine was in the same compartment as the crew while there was inadequate ventilation and certainly no air conditioning.  That made for a burning, carbon monoxide filled hell.  Likewise, men had to dress up in heavy cloths and wear chainmail masks to avoid injury from metal flakes and rivets that would fly about when small arms fire hit the tank.  Finally, the gas tanks were placed above the crew thus meaning that a well-placed shot might burst them and cause everyone inside to be incinerated!  Even if the tankers survived their ordeal they might easily take days or weeks to recover enough to give it another go. 

It doesn’t matter how amazing your tank may be if you don’t have trained crews to use it!  And, make no mistake – trained tankers are a vital resource.  Yes, the Imperium wastes life on a whim, but a skilled crewman is too valuable a tool even for it to expend needlessly.

Another real-life historical example is the venerable United States M4 Sherman.  In retrospect it has gained a reputation for being a death trap when facing later German tanks (the Germans didn’t call them “Tommy Cookers” for nothing) such as the Panther and Tiger.  Yet, what this forgets is that for everything else the Sherman was clearly superior.  It was far more dependable and rugged while also being a comparative joy to live in.  When Soviet tankers received some via Lend Lease they were amazed – it came with spectacular luxuries such as power steering that made the Sherman quite popular.  This is really saying something given that contemporary Soviet tanks such as the famous T-34 or KV-1 were clearly superior in a battle situation.

Back to the Leman Russ – another limitation of the Russ design are the sponson mounted weapons.  They may look impressive, but in real life they’d probably be more trouble than they’d be worth.  One reason is that those extra weapons require extra amounts of machinery and ammunition.  They also need extra gunners.  All that added space and weight means less of each that can be used for things like armor.  It also puts greater strain on the engine making the tank slower and more prone to breakdowns. 

So many different weapons and people using them also plays havoc on basic command and control.  In a comparable WW1 or 2 tanks you have a commander who barks orders to the crew around him.  It’s tough enough to get the tank going where you want and a single gun on target.  Add in another three major weapons and using them effectively is going to be nigh impossible.  Who is supposed to fire at what?  Did he mean me or Bob manning the lascannon?  The interior of a tank in battle is a loud, smelly place where communication is difficult at best.  In such circumstances the practical thing to do is lessen complexity, not increase it with lots of extra systems for everyone to deal with.

There is also another factor, one that applies to battleships as much as tanks – bigger really is better.  A single large cannon is more effective than a set of smaller ones even if the latter add up to greater throw weight.  The larger the shot the better able it is to puncture armor at greater distances.  What does it matter if your tank is festooned with a hundred guns if all their shots just patter uselessly off the other guy’s tank?  Why waste all that extra weight on smaller weapons when you can combine it all into one giant cannon?  The only real weapons you need on a tank are those meant for different roles.  For example, a main battle cannon isn’t very efficient when it comes to taking out infantry, so load up on a few machine guns to take care of them.  Otherwise, simpler is better.

It is true that a multi-turreted Leman Russ is more fun to play with which is no doubt why Games Workshop went with that than something closer to modern real life.  And, to be fair, the Leman Russ would work – technically.  Still, if I had to be a tanker I think I’d prefer a modern Abrams over the more primitively designed Leman Russ. 

I would like to introduce a new series of irregular posts dealing with history and its relationship to gaming.  I happen to have a degree in the subject and all periods interest me, although I have a particular love of military history.  That fits gaming, especially Games Workshop games, since much of it deals with military concepts.  Heck, both 40K and Fantasy borrow liberally from own our history -- for instance, Bretonnia is just 14th century France and the Empire 16th century Germany, just with the names changed.  History, technology, and even science go together with Games Workshop quite naturally.  That's why I call this "Hstory in Gaming."  That is, the history and knowledge you find when you look more deeply into GW settings and systems.

I think if you give this new series a chance you'll like it.  After all, a big part of the appeal for games like Fantasy and 40K is their respective settings.  I plan on pointing out the relationship between what's gone before here on Earth and what's going on in the make-believe worlds of GW.  Likewise, you can learn something of the associated technology and customs, how the compare to our own.  It will give you a different perspective on these games we enjoy and in turn perhaps provide surprises you didn't see coming.

Here's an example of what I mean, although it doesn't pertain directly to GW.  Remember the movie The Hunt for Red October?  Great film, but it is in fact based on a false premise.  No, not just that the events it shows never actually occurred, but that in fact that they never could.  Part of the suspense of the film is the question of whether Captain Ramius is a would-be defector or a lunatic wanting to start World War III.  To demonstrate that characters within the movie worry that his plan is to come close enough to the United States to launch his sub's missiles.  It is that threat that the Soviets use in an attempt to trick the Americans into hunting down Ramius for them.

Only one little problem with this when compared to real life -- it's completely absurd.  You see, if Ramius was in fact a mad bomber looking to toast 50 million Americans he wouldn't need to sail to the U.S. Eastern seaboard to do so.  The missiles on a Typhon class ballistic submarine have the range to strike American targets from their home ports!  In other words, if Ramius wanted to blow up New York City he wouldn't need to leave home to do it.

Once you know this much of the premise of the movie makes no sense (the book it's based upon gets this right).  That doesn't make the movie any less great, but it does show how knowing a little about history and/or military technology can change your whole understanding of things.

Likewise, I hope to reveal similar interesting insights into the basis of the technology and cultures depicted in GW games and how the game mechanics suggest they work.  Some of the topics I have in mind include:

• A Short History of Early Firearms
• Does the Leman Russ Make Any Sense?
• Just why do Empire Troops Go Around in Leotards?
• Who Would Win -- The US Military or the Imperium?
• Do Dwarves Float?

And whatever else occurs to me over time.  I would also like to encourage people to ask questions.  Ever wondered how something related to Fantasy or 40K might work in real life?  Or, do you just have any burning question about history, technology, or science?  Please send them along.  One, it will allow me to indulge a lifelong passion of mine, and; two, it will give me more time to work on gaming projects before having to post about them!

So, stick around.  You may just learn something.