Who is the list checker?

Army list submitted.

Who is the list checker?

My latest sale on EBay is a very large Anglo Danish Army using Forged in Battle Miniatures. It is painted to a very high standard and based on precision cut metal bases.
Although on EBay Uk I will post worldwide.

As have I.

See you there, Robin.

9th of March perhaps!!

That is quite a long way before the event.

I suspect that despite entering I may have to withdraw. I have Burton two weeks later and two long journeys at this time of year might be one too many.

Selling my last army of the year. An extremely large and well painted and based army for which I reckonI used around £400 of unpainted lead.
For sale on EBay UK or by private sale. Will post worldwide%
Photos on EBay or by request.

I am painting the Khurasan boys just now. Very nice.

Richard not too unhappy about the highlanders as they probably perform in the way they should. Happy to let that one lie.
I will leave you to consider whether to increase the size of the James the IVth pikes. The big units just give me a more historical feel than the small 8 figure units.

Richard, almost embarrassed to mention this due to me having the army. In James IV Scots the pike unit size is eight bases. In practice the units were trained as Keils and I would suggest that twelve bases should be the defined size. I should emphasise that I am not suggesting they be given the Keil characteristic. As one writer correctly points out they were not equipped with any two handed to support such a definition. The image of the army at Flodden is one of very large units rather than smaller more manouverable tactical ones.
In practice, I think this weakens the army rather than strengthens it as it takes away much of the flexibility of manoeuvre that the smaller eight base units provide. In my own version, the number of pike units would drop from ten to around 6 or possibly seven.
Turning to the structure of highland units, which appear in many armies, these were changed last year,  from being one rank of higher class warriors with two ranks of lesser class guys with bows. Throughout the period the front rank was the chief, his kin and his more senior tacksmen with the more numerous tenants and clan members in a number of ranks behind. The current definition suggests loads of better guys and a handful of the humblies. I recall you had a good reason for making the change ( cannot recall what it was) but the balance just does not look historical.
On a non Scots note, why are later Danish not allowed to form mixed units when being used as allies? I admit no historical knowledge but seems strange that if the tactic worked for them then why would they not use when acting as an ally.

Certainly a good mix of armies.

Should we have more superiors and less Robin?