Historical Periods
moses
Just wondering....after discussing with a friend of mine the word
'renaissance' (which we all know means 're-birth' or 'new beginning'
depending on your school of thought) I was wondering where the dedicated
time changes take place. I'm pretty sure that Historians don't go by the
WRG Wargames Rules and Books. I can't imagine seeing a professor of History
stand up and say 'The Ancient period dBm Book 1......'
So, can anyone out there point me in a direction of WHEN the various
periods come into being? I did a search on the web, and for the most part,
can only find a couple of references to history and periods. These are
usually associated with Music. Ie - Medieval, Rennaissance, Baroque,
Classical, Romantic, and Modern. Obviously, this can't be easily swung over
to gaming, as to me Classical means either Ancient Roman/Greek, or Biblical
armies - again depending on your school of thought.
I'd be interested in any opinions/web site addresses!
Thanks
Ian
TYGHOCK
The Italian Renaissance is often considered the earliest, and some scholars use
1300.
The classic view (not specific) is usually Europe from 1450-1660. It usually is
defined as starting with the Expulsion of the moors, the advent of exploration
and the Valois - Habsburg conflict, and ending roughly after the 30 years' War
period and the Spanish/french conflict thereafter.
- TYGHOCK
If you're not part of the Conspiracy, you're part of the problem.
keit...@yahoo.com
"moses" <ian.n...@no.spam.please.usa.net> wrote:
> Hey all,
> Just wondering....after discussing with a friend of mine the word
> 'renaissance' (which we all know means 're-birth' or 'new beginning'
> depending on your school of thought) I was wondering where the dedicated
> time changes take place. I'm pretty sure that Historians don't go by the
> WRG Wargames Rules and Books. I can't imagine seeing a professor of History
> stand up and say 'The Ancient period dBm Book 1......'
> So, can anyone out there point me in a direction of WHEN the various
> periods come into being?
I don't think academic historians use strict start/end dates for periods. The
changeover from one period to the next usually takes quite a long time, and it
seems to be a matter of personal preference and criteria as to just where you
draw the line. Those of us who are mainly interested in military history have
the advantage of being able to use the date of an individual battle or war as
marking a distinct change, but even then the periods often only apply to
specific geographical areas.
My highly Euro-centric (even Anglo-centric) definitions would be:
Biblical/Pre-Classical - before 550BC (beginning of Achaemenid Persian
dynasty) Classical - 550BC-376AD (Adrianople) Dark Ages - 376-1066 or 1071
(Hastings or Manzikert) Medieval - 1066/71 - 1453 or 1485 (Fall of
Constantinople or Bosworth) Rennaissance 1453/85 - 1648 (End of 30 Year's
War) or 1645 (End of English Civil war) or 1688 (Glorious Revolution in
England) 18th Century - 1688-1776 (Declaration of Independence) or 1789
(French Revolution) Napoleonic Period - 1776/89 - 1815 (Waterloo) 19th
Century - 1815 - 1914 Every thing after that is just modern.
I think these distinctions are pretty valid in terms of British history, and
not bad for European history, but they've got no real relevance to the rest of
the world.
--
Keith Venables
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
moses
keit...@yahoo.com wrote in message <75g592$t0b$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>I think these distinctions are pretty valid in terms of British history,
and
>not bad for European history, but they've got no real relevance to the rest
of
>the world.
Thats true. Being mostly of Anglo stock, or at least Anglo education, I
think we pretty much can put it ALL (the whole world) into your dating
system. I've often thought that the Nobunaga period Japanese would be an
interesting late Ancients army, even tho you are talking late 1500's/early
1600's. I think there were 15C European armies that had more firearms than
the entire Japanese achipeligo altogether, yet we must fight in the
Rennaissance period :). Actually, I'm more for historical opponents anyway,
so I think it is a matter of finding the rules that you like, of show the
flavour of the period you are fighting!
Thanks for your response!
Ian
Steven M Goode
Historical Periods by keit...@yahoo.com
> I think these distinctions are pretty valid in terms of British history, and
> not bad for European history, but they've got no real relevance to the
rest of
>
> the world.
largely upon what region you're looking at. The Renaissance arrived in
Italy before it came to Eastern Europe, for example.
moses
Steven M Goode wrote in message ...
>Yeah, that's the thing about periods - how you define them depends
>largely upon what region you're looking at. The Renaissance arrived in
>Italy before it came to Eastern Europe, for example.
Some might say it is yet to arrive in SOME parts of Eastern Europe :)
Ian
keit...@yahoo.com
"moses" <ian.n...@no.spam.please.usa.net> wrote:
I've often thought that the Nobunaga period Japanese would be an
> interesting late Ancients army, even tho you are talking late 1500's/early
> 1600's. I think there were 15C European armies that had more firearms than
> the entire Japanese achipeligo altogether, yet we must fight in the
I quite like anachronistic matchups. I played a couple of games under WRG 6th
edition using a Sioux war party (without guns). They were fairly effective,
although I think I probably overrated their archery. I've also always fancied
matching a Zulu impi against early Imperial Roman legions.
Joanne Peterson
advisor in college made herself very unpopular by insisting that the
term Renaissance was meaningless, instead it should be high middle
ages. As Doctor Hamilton put it" the mediaeval world finally gets
really going then the Renaissance gets all the credit!"
Then too you might consider the scholarly gunfight over just when late
antiquity began.
Jim
WhiteMetal
In an earlier posting you write.
>My advisor in college made herself very unpopular by insisting that the term
Renaissance was meaningless, instead it should be high middle ages.
The term 'high middle ages' is already in use and describes the years (approx.)
1066/1100 to 1350. I always thought that the whole point of the Renaissance
was that the middle ages were over?
Adrian Delves.
John M. Atkinson
<mcp...@quiknet.com> wrote:
>Personally I cringe every time I hear the phrase "Dark Ages." My
>advisor in college made herself very unpopular by insisting that the
>term Renaissance was meaningless, instead it should be high middle
>ages. As Doctor Hamilton put it" the mediaeval world finally gets
>really going then the Renaissance gets all the credit!"
>
>Then too you might consider the scholarly gunfight over just when late
>antiquity began.
One notes that soc.history.ancient extends up to +/- AD 600 because
they want to discuss the Roman Empire up to Heraclius, but that
soc.history.medieval begins in +/- 500 AD due to the loss of the
Western half of the Empire.
I think of the Middle Ages ending in 1453, followed by Early Modern,
which ends in 1789, giving us Modern.
John M. Atkinson
nospam becomes erols to reply
What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly. . .
it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as
FREEDOM should not be highly rated.
--Thomas Jefferson
Daniel Dionne
> I've also always fancied matching a Zulu impi against early Imperial Roman
> legions.
I've done it, in WRG 5th edition. My first "ancients" army was Shakan-period
Zulus. It was a depressing experience, because the Romans had all the advantages
of armor and weapons, plus the thrice-be-damned cavalry to keep me from being
able to exploit flanks. I did beat an inexperienced Trajanic commander once, by
surrounding his over-ambitious heavy cavalry with the Fasimba.
Nevertheless, I enjoyed the Zulus greatly--one of the very few highly-disciplined
light infantry armies in history. I had some terrific matchups at the far end of
the chronology spectrum, against Mycenaeans and New Kingdom Egyptians.
--Dan Dionne, ddi...@us.ibm.com
cronical
> Hey all,
> Just wondering....after discussing with a friend of mine the word
> 'renaissance' (which we all know means 're-birth' or 'new beginning'
> depending on your school of thought) I was wondering where the dedicated
> time changes take place.
[snip]
When does the Renaissance begin? It depends what you mean by Renaissance.
The Italians become aware of a divide between the ³modern² world and the
past during the 15th century, but this doesn¹t reach the benighted parts
of Europe, such as England, until the 16th century really. The Papal
monarchy of the Catholic church collapses and is then revived during the
first half of the 15th century, and a hundred years later experiences the
Lutheran Insurgency, but what difference does this make to the Ottoman
Turks or the Mamluks or the Persians - or the Chinese?
Basically, in wargaming terms warfare undergoes a great change during
the 15th and 16th centuries, with armies getting bigger, and gunpowder
weapons altering both strategy and tactics. Since this revolution occurs
in Europe, it is probably best to allow events on this continent to
determine period boundaries.
I would argue that wargaming is best served by accepting that there is
a transitional period, covering approximately 1410-1560, which falls into
both ³Medieval² and ³Renaissance², depending on what kind of game you want
to play, and where it is set. A campaign game at either end could be
played using fairly similar rules, but a table-top battle might want to
adopt a more restricted transitional period of about 1450-1530.
--
Remove *NOSPAM* to answer
cronical
to castigate it, although I donšt see what harm is done. We can blame Tony
Bath for it. His Hyborian campaign was full of anachronistic armies, and a
profound influence on how Phil Barker went on to draw up his rules.
Paul Szuscikiewicz
John Secker
cronical <cron...@dircon.co.uk> writes
an imaginary continent on my wall, packed with nations remakably similar
in all but name to various examples across 3000 years of history. It
allows me to collect, paint and fight with any Ancient army that takes
my fancy. I can also create dynasties and watch as generals and units
increase in experience and quality. I never actually read any of Tony
Bath's stuff directly, but his ideas pervaded so much of the early
wargames writing (by which I mean late 60's and early 70's) that you
can't eascape his influence.
--
John Secker
Stan Olson
Stan: I cant imagine that tribal celtic infantry
were that different from a Zulu in practise.
I am going to do a 15mm Hordes of the Things (WRG)
Zulu army with Witchdoctors and stampeding cattle
maybe even a multi legged walking hut (ala' Da'vinci
wheeled fortress-Tank) ...
But I guess that would make it only semi-historical.
Of course that Shaka Zulu TV mini-series did
make him out to be a mythic King Arthur type figure ....
Complete with Assagi-calibre !
glenn...@my-dejanews.com
cron...@dircon.co.uk (cronical ) wrote:
> Anachronistic match ups are often used by people who donšt like ancients
> to castigate it, although I donšt see what harm is done. We can blame Tony
> Bath for it. His Hyborian campaign was full of anachronistic armies, and a
> profound influence on how Phil Barker went on to draw up his rules.
>
> Paul Szuscikiewicz
>
1) I would like to see (one of) my favorite armies in this era match up
against one of the 'great' armies of the period;
2) The perception (possibly correct) that certain armies were 'unbeatable' in
their fragment of space and time - Alexander's Macedonians, Assyrians, etc.
3) Just because the historical biass is non-existant (i.e., Romans generally
squash their 'barbaric' foes...) if the two never met in Battle - such as
pre-contact Cherokee versus, say, Japanese Samurai in the virgin woods of
Tennessee...(Refer back to item 1.)
Glenn
MRTINJ
>> Anachronistic match ups are often used by people who donšt like ancients
>> to castigate it, although I donšt see what harm is done. We can blame Tony
>> Bath for it. His Hyborian campaign was full of anachronistic armies, and a
>> profound influence on how Phil Barker went on to draw up his rules.
>>
>> Paul Szuscikiewicz
>>
>Perhaps part of the reason people like Anachronistic Ancients is
>
>1) I would like to see (one of) my favorite armies in this era match up
>against one of the 'great' armies of the period;
>
>2) The perception (possibly correct) that certain armies were 'unbeatable'
>in
>their fragment of space and time - Alexander's Macedonians, Assyrians, etc.
>
>3) Just because the historical biass is non-existant (i.e., Romans generally
>squash their 'barbaric' foes...) if the two never met in Battle - such as
>pre-contact Cherokee versus, say, Japanese Samurai in the virgin woods of
>Tennessee...(Refer back to item 1.)
>
>Glenn
I think it's even simpler - the most comprehensive range of miniature figures,
sources for painting (uniforms, shields, etc) and formal organization are
available for some of history's "winners", no matter what their historical era.
And almost always, the first person to start up a new period in a local group
will almost certainly pick the most well-known army. So in the era commonly
called the "Dark Ages" Vikings and Normans and Byzantines are common, while
Lombards and Saxons and Moors are relatively scarce.
Ditto for the Classical era : Romans and Macedonians dominate, while Persians
and proper Barbarian hordes are scarce. So people develop a primary army, that
has a wide variety of troops available for game play.
It's only natural that when two folks have lovingly painted and organized their
preferred "ancient" army that they bang 'em together, not matter how
anachronistic the result might be!
And damn the rules that don't allow it!
Martin J.
Daniel Dionne
> Anachronistic match ups are often used by people who donšt like ancients to
> castigate it, although I donšt see what harm is done. We can blame Tony Bath
> for it. His Hyborian campaign was full of anachronistic armies, and a
> profound influence on how Phil Barker went on to draw up his rules.
Tony probably deserves some blame, but the real "fault," if any, lies in the
period itself--so many interesting armies from such a wide timespan. So when
folks get together, they want to push their armies against somebody else's
armies, and history be hanged. Nothing wrong with that.
Still, there's a tremendous value to exploring a period in depth, building
several armies that interacted historically. Troops that make no sense in an
anachronistic setting suddenly become invaluable, and scenarios can become
much richer. I've done in-depth armies for what I call the "Hind End of the
Roman Empire" and am working on a 600BC Middle Eastern series. Terrific fun.
--Dan Dionne, ddi...@us.ibm.com
Daniel Dionne
> Stan: I cant imagine that tribal celtic infantry
> were that different from a Zulu in practise.
Very significant differences between Zulus and the majority of tribal troops. First,
Zulu impis were permanently formed and drilled troops ("regular" in the WRG
vernacular), unlike tribal part-timers. Second, Shaka trained them in melee tactics,
rather than the usual semi-skirmish tactics (hence the assegai, which replaced the
earlier throwing spears). Finally, the proportion of veteran troops (A and B class in
the old WRG system) was very high, since the impis served in their age classes for
upwards of 20 years. I rated married impis as B class, unmarried impis as C class, and
the Fasimba (Shaka's special guard impi) as A class.
The army thus has discipline and speed along with excellent morale. The key
disadvantage is the lack of armor and the absence of any supporting troops (no horse,
no skirmishers).
--Dan Dionne, ddi...@us.ibm.com
glenn...@my-dejanews.com
mrt...@aol.com (MRTINJ) wrote:
> > cron...@dircon.co.uk (cronical ) wrote:
> >> Anachronistic match ups are often used by people who donšt like ancients
> >> to castigate it, although I donšt see what harm is done. We can blame Tony
> >> Bath for it. His Hyborian campaign was full of anachronistic armies, and a
> >> profound influence on how Phil Barker went on to draw up his rules.
> >>
Basic answers are usually the best.
Stan Olson
>
> Stan Olson wrote:
>
> > Stan: I cant imagine that tribal celtic infantry
> > were that different from a Zulu in practise.
>
> Very significant differences between Zulus and the majority of tribal troops. First,
> Zulu impis were permanently formed and drilled troops ("regular" in the WRG
> vernacular), unlike tribal part-timers. Second, Shaka trained them in melee tactics,
> rather than the usual semi-skirmish tactics (hence the assegai, which replaced the
> earlier throwing spears). Finally, the proportion of veteran troops
were (primarily) semi-skirmishers.
Nor were they Part time tribal warriors ...
The women ran things including their limited
agriculture, so the boys could play their
Tribal warfare games ...
(A and B class in
> the old WRG system) was very high, since the impis served in their age classes for
> upwards of 20 years. I rated married impis as B class, unmarried impis as C class, and
> the Fasimba (Shaka's special guard impi) as A class.
Stan: How elite, could a 20 year vetran get, living
in a land ruled by a military warlord/tyrant ?
How elite will the US Marines get using computer
missles to bomb a third world country like Iraq ?
>
> The army thus has discipline and speed along with excellent morale. The key
> disadvantage is the lack of armor and the absence of any supporting troops (no horse,
> no skirmishers).
> --Dan Dionne, ddi...@us.ibm.com
Stan: most Ancient Euro-tribals Started battles, campaign seasons
or raids, in High morale.
And they also learned through training as Roman allies.
They learned to use shock cavalry tactics
and developed it through the dark ages period.
The Zulus learned to feed maintain and train
vast amounts of troops, But that did not make
them better than some opponents-rivals, just
more numerous ...
Ray Rangel
6th
>edition using a Sioux war party (without guns). They were fairly effective,
fancied
>matching a Zulu impi against early Imperial Roman legions.
If that's your cup of tea, have at it. However, as far as I'm concerned,
games like that are fantasy and are more properly discussed along with space
orks and ents. I have a couple of games that I really like to play in the
fantastic genre, i.e. Sky Galleons of Mars (Space 1889) and Silent Death. I
certainly don't put the Space 1889 "what if" pseudo-history in the same
class as my Napoleonics or Colonials. Take note that I am not saying that
your game of Sioux vs. Zulu or my game of 1889 Imperial Britons vs. Martians
is 'better' than historicals. They are simply not historical.
The 'what-if' historical games limit themselves to the realm of possibility.
e.g. 'what-if' Blutcher hadn't made it to Waterloo, 'What-if' Operation Sea
Lion had proceeded. Throwing Midianite Arabs at Norse Irish is just plain
goofy in historical terms.
It's one of the things that soured me on DBM. When my N.K.E. had to attack
Anglo Danes in Northern Europe during a tournament! Chariots can't go into
the woods, so you can guess what happened. On the other hand when I played
against Mitani chariots they did reasonably well in the terrain for which
they were intended.
It also tough me what playing historical miniatures really is. Historical
miniatures is setting up games (scenarios) that are based on historical
armies, units, etc. in an appropriately historical setting. Historical
gaming *is not* taking to armies separated by 10,000 miles and 1,000 years,
evenly matched with some point system, lining them up and banging them
together.
Bottom line...well, it's a good thing that there is a maillist for DBM,
other wise we might have to create rec.games.miniatures.pseudo-historical!
Steve Burt
Ray Rangel <xr...@texas.net> wrote in article
<9A0g2.16445$K3....@news1.giganews.com>...
> It's one of the things that soured me on DBM. When my N.K.E. had to
attack
> Anglo Danes in Northern Europe during a tournament! Chariots can't go
into
> the woods, so you can guess what happened. On the other hand when I
played
> against Mitani chariots they did reasonably well in the terrain for which
> they were intended.
>
DBM doesn't force you to play ahistoric matchups.
Nor does it force you to play equal points battles.
I use the rules exclusively for historical refights and scenarios between
historic opponents.
Some people enjoy the 'pure' competitive aspect of matching up arbitrary
armies, and that's fine by me, but it's hardly fair to criticise the rules
for this.
Tournament play has nothing to do with historical wargaming, IMO, but it
can be enjoyable in its own right.
John M. Atkinson
wrote:
>Ray, this is a strange attitude.
>DBM doesn't force you to play ahistoric matchups.
>Nor does it force you to play equal points battles.
>I use the rules exclusively for historical refights and scenarios between
>historic opponents.
I play DBassorted once a month, and I have yet to truly play an
ahistorical game. Used Byzantine armies which don't have each other
listed in the 'official' enemy lists, but since it was Thematic vs.
Nikephorean, we rationalized it by saying it's a civil war at the cusp
between the two time periods. BTW, my Nikephoreans narrowly defeated
those nasty usurping Thematics. It was beautiful--my Kathapractoi[1]
moved down the field in a line of battle, with the Klibanophoroi,
Normans, and Hetaeri[2] in the center, light cavalry on the left
flank, and Varangians covering the right--too much crappy terrain out
there. Turned into a confused, swirling, cavalry melee in which my
superiority in heavy cavalry finally told. By the end, half my army
was facing the wrong way, and whatever organized lines I had were
pretty much gone. Rather like I'd imagine a cavalry melee at close
quarters to be.
[1]Phil Barker blew it on this DBM list. Kavallarioi is an
anachronism. The Cav(S), representing the typical dual-armed[3]
cavalryman in full armor, possibly with frontal barding should be
called Kataphractoi. The fully-armored lancers and macemen on fully
barded horses were called Klibanophoroi.
[2]Sp? Greek for Companions, referred to an Imperial Guard unit.
It's what I think of the stand with the general as.
[3]Not all of them were dual-armed, but the formation as a whole
contained both lances and bows, and at least some troopers with both.
moses
Daniel Dionne wrote in message <367FC203...@us.ibm.com>...
>Stan Olson wrote:
>Very significant differences between Zulus and the majority of tribal
troops. First,
>Zulu impis were permanently formed and drilled troops ("regular" in the WRG
>vernacular), unlike tribal part-timers. Second, Shaka trained them in
melee tactics,
>rather than the usual semi-skirmish tactics (hence the assegai, which
replaced the
B class in
>the old WRG system) was very high, since the impis served in their age
classes for
>upwards of 20 years. I rated married impis as B class, unmarried impis as
C class, and
>the Fasimba (Shaka's special guard impi) as A class.
>
key
>disadvantage is the lack of armor and the absence of any supporting troops
(no horse,
>no skirmishers).
Actually - a few years ago, we at our club were discussing the exact same
thing. We rated them as Pretty much the same as Roman Legionaries. There
are quite amazing similarities. Consider:
"Reg B/C" MI, HTW, Sh
The HTW is a bit of a far call, but not THAT far! It would work better with
the dBm System
"Regular Ordinary Blade"
The Assegai is basically the same as the 'Gladius Hispana' in use, short
stabbing sword. Sure the Assagain LOOKS like a spear, but it is in fact a
short sword!
Ian
moses
Ray Rangel wrote in message <9A0g2.16445$K3....@news1.giganews.com>...
>Take note that I am not saying that
>your game of Sioux vs. Zulu or my game of 1889 Imperial Britons vs.
Martians
>is 'better' than historicals. They are simply not historical.
>
>The 'what-if' historical games limit themselves to the realm of
possibility.
>e.g. 'what-if' Blutcher hadn't made it to Waterloo, 'What-if' Operation Sea
>Lion had proceeded. Throwing Midianite Arabs at Norse Irish is just plain
>goofy in historical terms.
>
>It's one of the things that soured me on DBM. When my N.K.E. had to attack
>Anglo Danes in Northern Europe during a tournament! Chariots can't go into
>the woods, so you can guess what happened. On the other hand when I played
>against Mitani chariots they did reasonably well in the terrain for which
>they were intended.
Well said. I tend to agree with you. In competition, my Syracusans can't
do very well. I basically either lose, or draw. Rarely do knights (the
most prolific army in competition) go up against my spear wall. They will
do a few things against my horse, but that is expected. The few occations I
have faught knights in HTH with my Spearwall, I've dont well, or badly.
Point is, Syracusans wouldn't have had a clue what a knight was, and if they
came across them, they would have developed tactics to counter them!
To have such things as 'If expressly permitted by their army list, spears
<snip> fighting mounted <snip> add +1 for a single <snip> 3rd rank of psiloi
armed with bows <snip>'
HISTORY says that Syracusans didn't use this system with their bow armed
psiloi, but I'm not fighting history if I'm fighting Later Hungarians, so
why can't I chuck my Psiloi in behind my Hoplite wall. NO-ONE can say that
they wouldn't do that, because Hoplites never did fight massed Knights.
IMHO if you are fighting history, fight history. If not, then don't be
suprised if you get odd results!
Ian
Dan D. Cyr
that you got a historical result if using a decent set of rules.
While I am not the purist that some might be, I have to admit that having used
armies from different periods, continents, etc., to play vs others, has changed my
opinions on several sets of rules. Granted that DBA, or its big brother DBM (and
DB*) give quick results, cost small amounts (can anyone say "army in a bag"?), and
are fun, I never fool myself as to thinking that I am recreating a possible match
between, say, my Aztecs and your Mongols, or that the results are any more
historical than if either was fighting an Elf or Orc army. As an earlier post
suggested, trying to "freeze" armies (weapons, tactics and formations) and have
them compete against armies that are "frozen" (from another period or continent)
also is silly. Historical armies that fought each other built weapon systems to
counter each other's formations or tactics to counter each other's tactics.
Putting a DBA New Kingdom Egyptian army (chariots, bronze weapons, very little
armor, etc.) against an 100 Years War one (plate armor, big horses, longbows,
handguns, early cannons, etc.) is silly, but done all the time (if not worse).
Least anyone think that I am knocking just DBA or DBM, please relax. I play both,
and enjoy them. I also play WAB, and other rules that are also used to play non
historical mismatches. What I think happens, is that the rules are modified to
allow such at the expense of historical detail.
It seems to be a fairly common occurrence among ancients players to mismatch
opponents (and define ancients anyway you want) as I have yet to see anyone willing
to play their 100 Years War Army against my World War II armored division. Or even
their ACW army against the W.W.II tanks. Why not?
And yes, I do the research, buy the figures and paint both opposing armies for
historical games. Slow, costly, but much more enjoyable to me (you can do what you
enjoy). So, rather than express dismay that someone might not want to rig a set of
rules to allow 1830's Zulu fight 1st Century Imperial Romans, lets all just get
along.
Dan
MRTINJ wrote:
<<large snip>>
> And after I kicked you all over the table with your historical match-up, maybe
> then you'll get off my back.
>
<<smaller snip>>
Ray Rangel
>>If that's your cup of tea, have at it. However, as far as I'm concerned,
>>games like that are fantasy and are more properly discussed along with
space
>>orks and ents.
>
>>The 'what-if' historical games limit themselves to the realm of
possibility.
>>e.g. 'what-if' Blutcher hadn't made it to Waterloo, 'What-if' Operation
Sea
>>Lion had proceeded. Throwing Midianite Arabs at Norse Irish is just plain
>>goofy in historical terms.
>>Historical
>>gaming *is not* taking to armies separated by 10,000 miles and 1,000
years,
>>evenly matched with some point system, lining them up and banging them
>>together.
>
>>Bottom line...well, it's a good thing that there is a maillist for DBM,
>>other wise we might have to create rec.games.miniatures.pseudo-historical!
>
>Lovely attitude, there. Here we sit, watching the youngsters flock to
>ridiculous games like warhammer and 40K and this gentleman believes the
>historical folks should be even more riven with in-bred cliques than it
already
>is.
>
No, that's not my attitude at all. I like playing Space 1889's Sky Galleons
of Mars. I like playing Silet Death, I have played Star Fleet Battles for
years. Are they historical? Heck no! Are they fun? Heck yea!
If I were to put my kampfgruppe up against legioniares, no matter how
carefully researched the armies were, no matter hoe accurately painted, no
matter how historically each army was organized, the GAME would not be
historical. I might be great fun. It might tickle you pink. It is not an
historical GAME.
>Here's my notion: If you build an army with historical figures you
purchased
>with your hard-earned from historical miniature manufactures and then
lovingly
>painted using historical color guides and then organized along the lines
set
>forth by historical rules, history books and historical army lists, then
you
>are a HISTORICAL GAMER!
>
See above. To be a historical gamer you need more that pretty toys, you need
to play historical GAMES.
>No matter if you fight Normans vs New Kingdom Eqyptians or Mongols vs
Romans.
>
>To those folks who wish to believe I'm playing pseudo-historical games
because
>I don't want to fight Hastings or Magnesia or Arbela ad infinitum, ad
naseum,
>get over yourselves!
>
I don't think that you are playing fantasy games because you don't want to
fight Hastings. I DO think you are playing fantasy games when NKE fight
Normans (or Orks, or whatever).
>But by Mr. Rangel's judgement, the only historical ancient game I can
actuall
>fight is Romans vs Palmyrans because my other armies are "seperated by
>thousands of miles and thousands of years". That may be his opinion of my
>collection, but I don't buy it.
>
It really doesn't matter if you "but it" or not. Two armies separated by
thousands of years meeting on the gaming table is not a HISTORICAL
game...period.
>And after I kicked you all over the table with your historical match-up,
maybe
>then you'll get off my back.
Nobody's on your back. What does how well you play have to do with
historical gaming? Your "let's take it outside, buddy" statement left me
wondering....
>
>Just my two cents worth. I don't mean to offend Mr. Rangel, it's just that
>some of his statements struck a raw nerve with me! :)
>
Could it be that you a little sensitive to people calling you games "Fantasy
Games" because it's TRUE?
Play with your toys the way you want. I makes no difference to me. But if
you match up armies "separated by thousands miles and thousands of years"
PLEASE don't pretend to be playing a historical game. It does a disservice
to the many fine gamers and avocational historians that put untold hours of
research and effort into creating historical GAMES.
Stan Olson
<< about Zulus >>
> "Reg B/C" MI, HTW, Sh
>
> The HTW is a bit of a far call, but not THAT far! It would work better with
> the dBm System
>
> "Regular Ordinary Blade"
Stan: younger militia regiments might be
rated as Auxillia instead ...
>
> The Assegai is basically the same as the 'Gladius Hispana' in use, short
> stabbing sword. Sure the Assagain LOOKS like a spear, but it is in fact a
> short sword!
> Ian
Stan: Oh Yeah, Its all good fun, until Someone Loses an Eye !
"I pity da Zulu, dat fights my Swiss" Mr T on alternate
history wargaming ...
MRTINJ
>If that's your cup of tea, have at it. However, as far as I'm concerned,
>games like that are fantasy and are more properly discussed along with space
>orks and ents.
>The 'what-if' historical games limit themselves to the realm of possibility.
>e.g. 'what-if' Blutcher hadn't made it to Waterloo, 'What-if' Operation Sea
>Lion had proceeded. Throwing Midianite Arabs at Norse Irish is just plain
>goofy in historical terms.
>
>It also tough me what playing historical miniatures really is. Historical
>miniatures is setting up games (scenarios) that are based on historical
>armies, units, etc. in an appropriately historical setting.
>Historical
>gaming *is not* taking to armies separated by 10,000 miles and 1,000 years,
>evenly matched with some point system, lining them up and banging them
>together.
>Bottom line...well, it's a good thing that there is a maillist for DBM,
>other wise we might have to create rec.games.miniatures.pseudo-historical!
Lovely attitude, there. Here we sit, watching the youngsters flock to
ridiculous games like warhammer and 40K and this gentleman believes the
historical folks should be even more riven with in-bred cliques than it already
is.
Here's my notion: If you build an army with historical figures you purchased
with your hard-earned from historical miniature manufactures and then lovingly
painted using historical color guides and then organized along the lines set
forth by historical rules, history books and historical army lists, then you
are a HISTORICAL GAMER!
No matter if you fight Normans vs New Kingdom Eqyptians or Mongols vs Romans.
To those folks who wish to believe I'm playing pseudo-historical games because
I don't want to fight Hastings or Magnesia or Arbela ad infinitum, ad naseum,
get over yourselves!
I raise armies I'm interested in because there are well-cast, well-sculpted and
well-priced figures available. I've built Alexandrian Macedonians, Punic-era
Carthagenians, Palmyrans, Middle Imperial Romans and Nikephorian Byzantines.
All of which have banged-up against each other on the tabletop at one time or
another.
But by Mr. Rangel's judgement, the only historical ancient game I can actuall
fight is Romans vs Palmyrans because my other armies are "seperated by
thousands of miles and thousands of years". That may be his opinion of my
collection, but I don't buy it.
Here's my proposal to all those folks who thing anchronistic ancients are a
disservice to the historical hobby.
You buy the figures of both historical armies you want to fight. You paint
them, you organize them and you provide the rules you wish to play with. You
set-up the terrain to suit yourself.
Then you let me pick the army I want to play with and which side of the table I
want to set-up on. You play the Anglo-Saxons and I'll play the Normans. Or
you play Achamedian Persians and I'll play the Macedonians.
And after I kicked you all over the table with your historical match-up, maybe
then you'll get off my back.
Just my two cents worth. I don't mean to offend Mr. Rangel, it's just that
some of his statements struck a raw nerve with me! :)
Martin J.
MRTINJ
>See above. To be a historical gamer you need more that pretty toys, you need
>to play historical GAMES.
> really doesn't matter if you "but it" or not. Two armies separated by
>thousands of years meeting on the gaming table is not a HISTORICAL
>game...period.
>Could it be that you a little sensitive to people calling you games "Fantasy
>Games" because it's TRUE?
>Play with your toys the way you want. I makes no difference to me. But if
>you match up armies "separated by thousands miles and thousands of years"
>PLEASE don't pretend to be playing a historical game. It does a disservice
>to the many fine gamers and avocational historians that put untold hours of
>research and effort into creating historical GAMES.
>
Ohhhh boy!
Mr. Rangle you know not to whom you speak. I run a painting service for
gamers, historical and otherwise. I own quite literally thousands upon
thousands of dollars worth of painting guides, historical sources and every WRG
"armies and enemies" book I can get my hands on.
I know history - I have to in order to stay in business.
I doubt if my customers who have hired me to paint everything from Eqyptian
chariots to German Panzers would think I am ill-serving the historical hobby
because I don't get my back-up when I see folks playing two armies that aren't
"in-period".
I rather see two folks having fun! And I don't wag my long finger in their
face like you've just done to me! It's precisely that sort of "I know best"
attitude that gives us historical gamers the reputation as know-it-all,
mean-spiritied old farts so many of us richly deserve.
Mr. Rangle, I'm forty years old and have been in this hobby since I was twenty.
I'm not some kid who doesn't know better. I just haven't lost the mental
flexibility of youth - yet!
But the moment I find myself giving a lecture like you just gave me, the minute
I hear words like yours come out of my mouth, it's time to quit this hobby.
Because I've lost all perspective about why I do this nonsense - it's just a
game, it's supposed to be a way to bring like-minded folks together, not tear
them down or apart.
I've played jolly good games that were perfectly historical with kids who
didn't know better AND I've played perfectly anachronistic games with a history
teacher who has a Masters degree in Classical history and is the head of a high
school history department. In both instances the goal was pleasure, not
education.
So if it does your ego good to think I'm not a REAL historical gamer, that
despite my massive collection of historical miniatures and my wall-to-wall
library of historical references I'm not quite as good as you,, feel free!
Your opinion of me is a burden my broad shoulders can bear!
In a hobby increasingly dominated by mere children playing 40K and warhammer
AND not bothering to ever paint their toys, do you honestly think that the best
tact you can take it to say to a fellow who's celtic mobs are tricked-out in
both tartan trousers and cloaks plus individual shield patterns "that it's
really a shame you're not a real historical gamer" just because he's fighting
Early Achamedian Persians instead of Republican Romans?
Historical gamers are increasingly being overwhelmed by a sea of REAL fantasy
and science-fiction gamers. We might be well-armed, but we're out-numbered.
Now is not the time to turn our metaphorical guns on each other - they'll be
plenty of time for that after we've beat back the hordes! :)
Live and let live, I've always said. Life might be nasty, brutal and short -
but that's no excuse to make it any worse!
Martin J. Blow
Ray Rangel
>>Play with your toys the way you want. I makes no difference to me. But if
>>you match up armies "separated by thousands miles and thousands of years"
>>PLEASE don't pretend to be playing a historical game. It does a disservice
>>to the many fine gamers and avocational historians that put untold hours
of
>>research and effort into creating historical GAMES.
>>
>Ohhhh boy!
>
>Mr. Rangle you know not to whom you speak. I run a painting service for
>gamers, historical and otherwise. I own quite literally thousands upon
>thousands of dollars worth of painting guides, historical sources and every
WRG
>"armies and enemies" book I can get my hands on.
>
Do you know the difference between owning a historical army and playing a
historical game?
>I doubt if my customers who have hired me to paint everything from Eqyptian
>chariots to German Panzers would think I am ill-serving the historical
hobby
>because I don't get my back-up when I see folks playing two armies that
aren't
>"in-period".
>
I have played many ahistorical games and had great fun. But I don't pretend
that I am playing anthing other than fantasy.
>I rather see two folks having fun! And I don't wag my long finger in their
>face like you've just done to me! It's precisely that sort of "I know
best"
>attitude that gives us historical gamers the reputation as know-it-all,
>mean-spiritied old farts so many of us richly deserve.
>
Duh. Have actually *read* any of my comments or are you just reflexing? I
think fantasy games are great fun! I also think that people who take the
time and effort to research and assemble scenarios based on historical
events and/or historical forces deserve the respect they have earned.
>Mr. Rangle, I'm forty years old and have been in this hobby since I was
twenty.
> I'm not some kid who doesn't know better. I just haven't lost the mental
>flexibility of youth - yet!
>
Then wrap your flexible mind around this: Just because your army is
historically accurate, it doesn't mean that your game is. I am talking about
historical GAMING, not painting miniatures.
>But the moment I find myself giving a lecture like you just gave me, the
minute
>I hear words like yours come out of my mouth, it's time to quit this hobby.
>Because I've lost all perspective about why I do this nonsense - it's just
a
>game, it's supposed to be a way to bring like-minded folks together, not
tear
>them down or apart.
>
Who is lecturing whom?
>I've played jolly good games that were perfectly historical with kids who
>didn't know better AND I've played perfectly anachronistic games with a
history
>teacher who has a Masters degree in Classical history and is the head of a
high
>school history department. In both instances the goal was pleasure, not
>education.
>
And this proves what? Does having an opponent with a degree in history make
your game any more "historical"? Sure you had fun...we can have fun playing
croquet as well, but we don't call it a historical game if the players have
degrees in history, now do we?
>So if it does your ego good to think I'm not a REAL historical gamer, that
>despite my massive collection of historical miniatures and my wall-to-wall
>library of historical references I'm not quite as good as you,, feel free!
>Your opinion of me is a burden my broad shoulders can bear!
>
MY ego? The enormity of my *ego* nor the fragility of yours alters the fact
that, regardless of how historically accurate your toys are painted, if you
don't use them for historical gaming then you are not a historical gamer.
Get the connection here...play the game you are a gamer, don't and you're
not. It's sort of a one plus one equals two thing. Notheing that you or I
can say will change the facts.
>In a hobby increasingly dominated by mere children playing 40K and
warhammer
>AND not bothering to ever paint their toys, do you honestly think that the
best
>tact you can take it to say to a fellow who's celtic mobs are tricked-out
in
>both tartan trousers and cloaks plus individual shield patterns "that it's
>really a shame you're not a real historical gamer" just because he's
fighting
>Early Achamedian Persians instead of Republican Romans?
>
Mere children...who's ego is kicking in now? I think that if you like
playing these types of games, go for it! Have a blast! More power to you! I
think that the fact that you like to paint and paint accurately is
wonderful! I think that lots of people have a lot of fun playing ahistorical
opponents! It's NOT historical gaming any more than it's croquet!
>Historical gamers are increasingly being overwhelmed by a sea of REAL
fantasy
>and science-fiction gamers. We might be well-armed, but we're
out-numbered.
>Now is not the time to turn our metaphorical guns on each other - they'll
be
>plenty of time for that after we've beat back the hordes! :)
>
Bull puckey! Historical gaming is alive and well, thank-you very much. New
lines of figures, resurection of old ones, new rules, more shows and better
attendance than ever shows that the hobby is far from dying.
>Live and let live, I've always said. Life might be nasty, brutal and
short -
>but that's no excuse to make it any worse!
>
Did I tell you that you were wrong for playing your games?
No.
Did I say that your games were any less enjoyable than historical games?
No.
Did I say that your gaming style was any less valid than any other?
No.
What I did say is: "Ahistorical match-ups is not historical gaming."
Read the preceding sentence again. Can you fathom why I am more than a
little confused by your reaction? Are you seriously disputing the validity
of that simple sentence?
cronical
<ddi...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>[snip]Š the real "fault," if any, lies in the
> period itself--so many interesting armies from such a wide timespan. So when
> folks get together, they want to push their armies against somebody else's
> armies, and history be hanged. Nothing wrong with that.
>
> --Dan Dionne, ddi...@us.ibm.com
Who decides what the timespan of a period is? The people who draw up and
use the rules. Wargames Research Group applied a method of dividing
history up into defined timespans, but the anachronistic possibilities
didnąt succeed to the same extent that it did in ancients. I have never
seen, for example, a US Mexican War army battling a British army of the
Sikh Wars, and they are coevals. We gamers have gone along with WRGąs
timespan, but it would be perfectly in order for us to use something
narrower for tournaments or our private games.
MRTINJ
>What I did say is: "Ahistorical match-ups is not historical gaming."
>
>Read the preceding sentence again. Can you fathom why I am more than a
>little confused by your reaction? Are you seriously disputing the validity
>of that simple sentence?
>
Okay, let me try to refine the point further...I'll agree the situation you're
describing is not fighting a "historical battle", but I still dispute your
assertion that it is not historical gaming.
Perhaps I over-reacted. But my definition of "fantasy gaming" involves
fantastic creatures and battlefield magic. Which I wish to clearly distinquish
from armies organized, painted and fought in a historical manner against a
out-of-period foe.
To label a historical enthuasist a fantasy gamer somehow dismisses him as less
serious, less dedicated to this part of the miniature hobby. It is in many
ways a slur - a small one that equates a serious-minded person with those folks
who play games with orcs and trolls and elves. Perhaps that was what most
upset me - equating a battle involving Macedonians and Carthagenians as equally
fantastic as a battle between Orcs and Dwarves, with flame-spouting artillery
and sizzling lighting bolts (ala Warhammer).
Perhaps Macedon vs Carthage is un-historical by your standards, but it
certainly not fantastic by mine. Alexander is mounted on Bucepalus (sic), not
on Pegasus - and no hoary sorcerer in a pointed hat is to be found anywhere on
the battlefield.
And on that note I depart this particular debate. I leave the field to Mr.
Rangel - I certainly cannot dispute his assertion that only what actually
occurred is historical fact. He is absolutely correct - history is what is
recorded in books, what actually happened. Not what might-have-been or
could-of-been or should-have been.
Martin J.
keit...@yahoo.com
"Ray Rangel" <xr...@texas.net> wrote:
>
>
> What I did say is: "Ahistorical match-ups is not historical gaming."
>
Ray,
My original posting was titled "Anachronistic Ancients" precisely because the
match-ups I mentioned weren't historically possible. You made the perfectly
reasonable, and pretty obvious, point that matching Zulus against Romans isn't
"historical", and all these people jump on you. What's wrong with them?
I play ahistorical match-ups most of the time, and I would freely admit that
it's no more historical than orcs against space marines. Fighting a "civil
war" between Polybian and Late Imperial Romans, (never mind either of them
against Zulus) is fantasy. The two forces might be reasonably representative
of the armies their cultures produced, but the match-up itself did not, and
could not, have happened. Therefore it is not "historical".
"Pseudo-historical", perhaps.
I don't really see how anyone could get so worked up about what you wrote. As
one of the earlier posters said, we don't do ourselves any favours by having a
go at each other. Keep the fighting on the table.
--
Keith Venables
Steven M Goode
Anachronistic Ancients .. by MRT...@aol.com
> >other wise we might have to create rec.games.miniatures.pseudo-historical!
>
anyone to playing ahistorical matchups. Not all DBM games are
ahistorical.
I suspect the problem is that while there are a number of ancients and
medieval gamers, the period covered by "ancients and medievals" is
enormous relative to the number of gamers. Even if there were 10 times
as many "ancients" gamers as ACW gamers, the ancients gamers would have
trouble finding historical opponents. "ancients" simply contains too
many sub-period. One solution to the problem of finding historical
opponents is to buy matching armies. Unfortunately, this can be
prohibitively expensive. The other solution that is commonly used is to
fight ahistorical battles. Obviously, it would be preferable to fight
historical ones. But (particuarly with rules that require large and
thus expensive armies) that is not always feasible.
John Secker
<mrt...@aol.com> writes
>>"Ray Rangel" thus spake upon usenet:
>
>>If that's your cup of tea, have at it. However, as far as I'm concerned,
>>games like that are fantasy and are more properly discussed along with space
>>orks and ents.
>
>>The 'what-if' historical games limit themselves to the realm of possibility.
>>e.g. 'what-if' Blutcher hadn't made it to Waterloo, 'What-if' Operation Sea
>>Lion had proceeded. Throwing Midianite Arabs at Norse Irish is just plain
>>goofy in historical terms.
>>
>>It also tough me what playing historical miniatures really is. Historical
>>miniatures is setting up games (scenarios) that are based on historical
>>armies, units, etc. in an appropriately historical setting.
>
>>Historical
>>gaming *is not* taking to armies separated by 10,000 miles and 1,000 years,
>>evenly matched with some point system, lining them up and banging them
>>together.
>
>>other wise we might have to create rec.games.miniatures.pseudo-historical!
>
>ridiculous games like warhammer and 40K and this gentleman believes the
>historical folks should be even more riven with in-bred cliques than it already
>is.
>
>Here's my notion: If you build an army with historical figures you purchased
>with your hard-earned from historical miniature manufactures and then lovingly
>painted using historical color guides and then organized along the lines set
>forth by historical rules, history books and historical army lists, then you
>are a HISTORICAL GAMER!
>
>No matter if you fight Normans vs New Kingdom Eqyptians or Mongols vs Romans.
>
>To those folks who wish to believe I'm playing pseudo-historical games because
>I don't want to fight Hastings or Magnesia or Arbela ad infinitum, ad naseum,
>get over yourselves!
>
>I raise armies I'm interested in because there are well-cast, well-sculpted and
>well-priced figures available. I've built Alexandrian Macedonians, Punic-era
>Carthagenians, Palmyrans, Middle Imperial Romans and Nikephorian Byzantines.
>All of which have banged-up against each other on the tabletop at one time or
>another.
>
>But by Mr. Rangel's judgement, the only historical ancient game I can actuall
>fight is Romans vs Palmyrans because my other armies are "seperated by
>thousands of miles and thousands of years". That may be his opinion of my
>collection, but I don't buy it.
>
actually serve in the desert? If so, you are not historical.
Do you fight battles which did not actually happen? If so, you are not
historical?
In refighting battles, do you allow tactics which the real generals did
not choose? If so you are not historical.
When units fight, do you allow combat results which did not actually
occur? If so, you are not historical.
The fact is, anything except a literal re-enactment of a documented
battle is fantasy in some degree. Everyone should draw the line at the
amount of variation from true history which suits them, and simply enjoy
the hobby. Trying to claim that people who enjoy more variation than you
do are 'not really historical wargamers' is simply snobbery, and is
likely to lead to hundreds of tiny enclaves of gamers, spending more
time attacking each other than having fun.
--
John Secker
Ray Rangel
>anyone to playing ahistorical matchups. Not all DBM games are
>ahistorical.
>
True enough. As I said before, the fighting battles with historical
opponents with DBM makes for some pretty good fights and the rules seem to
work fairly well.
>I suspect the problem is that while there are a number of ancients and
>medieval gamers, the period covered by "ancients and medievals" is
>enormous relative to the number of gamers. Even if there were 10 times
>as many "ancients" gamers as ACW gamers, the ancients gamers would have
>trouble finding historical opponents.
I agree entirely. It is fairly easy for me to find opponents for my
Napoleonic French. If I played ACW I assume it would be easy to find
opponents as well. Ancients are not so easy. "Ancients" covers so large a
period...
Once again. I didn't denigrate anyone. I simply stated that playing
out-of-period foes isn't historical gaming. It's not better or worse, it's
just NOT historical.
Ray Rangel
least a historically plausible scenario. Thus, a meeting engagement between
a French WWII battalion and Russian battalion somewhere on Eastern Front is
a historical game. A French WWII battalion and a Russian battalion meeting
on Mars is not. Neither is a French battalion WWII meeting a Zulu Impi is
not.
Get it?
>Do you fight battles which did not actually happen? If so, you are not
>historical?
It is perfectly acceptable in HISTORICAL games to model "typical"
engagements.
>When units fight, do you allow combat results which did not actually
>occur? If so, you are not historical.
This is a function of the rules. Many sets of rules have been discarded or
accepted based on the historical accuracy of the combat. After all, these
are wargames and the whole objective of a set of historical rules is to
reach as historical result as possible.
>The fact is, anything except a literal re-enactment of a documented
>battle is fantasy in some degree.
Nope. Wrong. Try again. We are talking about what is generally accepted
critera for describing the various genre of miniatures gaming. You
statement, in itself, is true. However, in the context of this conversation
it is out of place. We aren't talking about "what-if" scenarios. We are
talking about "never-could-have-occured" games.
>Trying to claim that people who enjoy more variation than you
>do are 'not really historical wargamers' is simply snobbery, and is
>likely to lead to hundreds of tiny enclaves of gamers, spending more
>time attacking each other than having fun.
Gimmme a break! Hundreds of tiny enclaves?!?! Yikes! Let's try this again.
If you play historical games you are a historical gamer. If you don't play
historical games then you are not. Simple, huh? It's NOT snobbery. I enjoy
playing fantasy and sci/fi games as much as the next guy. What I don't do is
try to call the games I play something they are not.
I have tried to avoid this because I know the storm that will
follow...but...here goes...
I think that what is happening here is the reverse of what this poster
contends. It's not that historical gamers think they are somehow "better",
rather, it's that non-historical gamers feel that they are somehow less.
Experienced, well balanced, gamers know different. Most like all kinds of
games and at the same time have their personal preferences. A few other
gamers feel compelled to call themselves historical even though they are not
playing historical games. The question that begs to be asked is why they
feel this compulsion.
If one were to reread the thread, one would realize quickly that it was not
I who said "I am better the you". Quite the contrary, it was the respondents
who claimed, "I am as good as you" or asked "Why do think less of me?"
I doesn't take a degree in psychology to figure this one out. It's plain to
see who is making judgements and who is not.
The bottom line is that there are a couple of folks out there who obviously
enjoy playing their games a great deal. However, while they freely admit
that the GAMES that they play have nothing what-ever to do history, they
*are* historical gamers 'cuz they have the pretty toys to prove it. You just
gotta wonder why they make such an issue of it. Geez! All I said was that
games involving fanciful opponents are not correctly called historical
games.
What is heartening is that only a couple of people took offense. Which
means, I hope, that most people are probably wondering what all the yelling
is about.
Ray Rangel
MRTINJ wrote in message <19981225130854...@ng-ce1.aol.com>...
>Ray Rangel said:
>
>>What I did say is: "Ahistorical match-ups is not historical gaming."
>>
>>Read the preceding sentence again. Can you fathom why I am more than a
>>little confused by your reaction? Are you seriously disputing the validity
>>of that simple sentence?
>>
you're
>describing is not fighting a "historical battle", but I still dispute your
>assertion that it is not historical gaming.
>
Hello, McFly!!! The person playing a non-historical game is a non-historical
gamer!
>Perhaps I over-reacted. But my definition of "fantasy gaming" involves
>fantastic creatures and battlefield magic. Which I wish to clearly
distinquish
>from armies organized, painted and fought in a historical manner against a
>out-of-period foe.
>
And you inferred that *my* mind wasn't flexible? By the way, how does one
fight "in a historical manner" against an out-of-period foe? Quite a trick,
if you ask me.
>To label a historical enthuasist a fantasy gamer somehow dismisses him as
less
>serious, less dedicated to this part of the miniature hobby. It is in many
>ways a slur - a small one that equates a serious-minded person with those
folks
>who play games with orcs and trolls and elves. Perhaps that was what most
>upset me - equating a battle involving Macedonians and Carthagenians as
equally
>fantastic as a battle between Orcs and Dwarves, with flame-spouting
artillery
>and sizzling lighting bolts (ala Warhammer).
Now who's being judgemental? Your true color are beginning to show my
freind. Do secretly think of yourself as a closet "fantasy" player? Your
Macedonians and Carthagenians may not be as fantastic and orcs and
dwarves...but it is still certainly not a historical game.
>And on that note I depart this particular debate. I leave the field to Mr.
>Rangel - I certainly cannot dispute his assertion that only what actually
>occurred is historical fact. He is absolutely correct - history is what
is
>recorded in books, what actually happened. Not what might-have-been or
>could-of-been or should-have been.
>
The question was never what "history" is, rather it was about what is and is
not accepted as being "historical gaming". I won't let you hide behind that
turn of phrase to avoid facing the reality of argument. Your stance is that
if you field toys that look right, then you are playing historical games. My
stance is that the toys are only a part of historical game, the other being
a historically possible scenario. Once your game leaves the realm of
possibility, then you enter the realm of the imaginary (aka "fantasy").
This, I think, you really can't dispute.
John Secker
>What I did say is: "Ahistorical match-ups is not historical gaming."
>
>Read the preceding sentence again. Can you fathom why I am more than a
>little confused by your reaction? Are you seriously disputing the validity
>of that simple sentence?
>
that sentence. If you want to deny that Palmyrans vs Ancient Britons
(say) is historical gaming, then what is it? Fantasy? If you can't see
the difference between that and Elves vs Chaos, then I'm sorry for you.
The difference is that the Palmyrans and Britons actually (historically)
existed. I can build and paint my armies as closely as possible to their
historic counterparts. I can seek to find (or write) rules which will as
closely as possible reproduce their behaviour on the field of battle.
Then I can ask "what if?". What if these nations had clashed? Of course
in actual fact they didn't. Also, in actual fact, Blucher arrived in
time at Waterloo, but nobody claims that refighting Waterloo with
Blucher failing to arrive is "not historical gaming". It is simply
asking "what if?".
Are you claiming that everything that happens in your "historical" games
actually happened in real life? If so, they must be terribly boring re-
enactments. If not, then they are ahistorical. So I am going to carry on
fighting battles between armies which never met in reality, and I am
going to carry on calling myself a historical wargamer. If that offends
your neatly categorised view of the world, then tough.
--
John Secker
Ray Rangel
John Secker wrote in message ...
>>
>>Read the preceding sentence again. Can you fathom why I am more than a
>>little confused by your reaction? Are you seriously disputing the validity
>>of that simple sentence?
>>
<snipped the bit about feeling sorry for me..>
>The difference is that the Palmyrans and Britons actually (historically)
>existed. I can build and paint my armies as closely as possible to their
>historic counterparts. I can seek to find (or write) rules which will as
>closely as possible reproduce their behaviour on the field of battle.
>Then I can ask "what if?". What if these nations had clashed? Of course
>in actual fact they didn't. Also, in actual fact, Blucher arrived in
>time at Waterloo, but nobody claims that refighting Waterloo with
>Blucher failing to arrive is "not historical gaming". It is simply
>asking "what if?".
"what if" scenarios in the historical sense typically means exploring
alternate POSSIBILITIES. It does not mean throwing armies against each other
that are a century or a millenium apart. That's fantasy.
>Are you claiming that everything that happens in your "historical" games
>actually happened in real life? If so, they must be terribly boring re-
>enactments. If not, then they are ahistorical. So I am going to carry on
>fighting battles between armies which never met in reality, and I am
>going to carry on calling myself a historical wargamer. If that offends
>your neatly categorised view of the world, then tough.
I have never claimed to be offended. What I did say was that calling these
games "historical" just because the miniatures are all neatly painted does a
disservice to those gamers and designers who spend untold hours creating
historically accurate rules, scenarios, and staging games. Historically
accurate figures DO NOT equate to a historical game.
By the way, "historical" means "without history". If you play "without
history" how can you be a historical gamer. You might be a historical figure
painter, but you are not a historical gamer no matter how loudly you claim
otherwise.
Once again let me reiterate. If you want to play these games and you enjoy
them, be my guest and have a ball. Knock yourself out! More power to you!
They can be loads of fun. They can even be interesting and a source of good
times and fraternity. Don't stop!
rjo...@henge.com
making a period that was in the 'early' days very much in the minority compared
to napoleonics into a LARGE and viable wargaming era.
He did this by creating decidedly 'fantasy' conflicts. He reduced the demands of
entry into the period by basically making it possible for gamers to get into
ancient gaming with little or no knowledge of ancient history or armies. As
long as they knew the 'lists' and built armies to these admittedly artificial
standards, they could game against others with little or no additional knowledge
of the period. This was especially important as the rules themselves allowed
for very little variance other than between armies. That is, a Roman army was
in WRG and DBM terms, a Roman army- with little variance of quality, and as the
rules minimized chance variation, the only possibility of interest was by
creating contests between ahistorical opponents.
This, of course, fed into the 'tournament' construct which, quite apart from
history, provided much of the interest for many gamers.
One can argue that it isn't history (it isn't) that it is often fantastical both
in the matching of armies that never met, or historically had a chance to adapt
to armies that they could in reality never meet, but no one cares! In many
cases, the make up and abilities of these armies and their units are open to a
very wide range of interpretation, by codifying the 'approved' make-up in lists
he neatly avoided the need for gamers to worry too much about these issues.
In short, he created a fantasy gaming environment within the historical
community. No one complained or quibbled but, caught up in the competitive
atmosphere, accepted this brilliant piece of slight of hand and enjoyed their
legions, elephants, and chariots.
Many who wargame ancients have a strong interest in ancient history and they
argue at great lengths about minor matters, and occaisionally make 'house rules'
to cover any variances they feel strongly about, but when the tournament rolls
around it isn't history, but winning, that is central to their wargames. I've
never seen a tournament WRG/DBX player refuse a rules lawyer's advantage because
it wasn't historical!
Phil has created a stronger interest in ancients than could ever have existed if
the 'Napoleonic' mindset has settled in. But, it has to be remembered that the
lack of definitive info allows this, in a very real way much of the 'history' in
most wargamer's ancient wargames is whatever Phil Barker and Bodley say it is!
As long as they have the good sense to never allow Hannibal's elephants to fly
they will remain the standard for many ancient wargamers.
BJ
PS Barker's works remain as one of the best 'crossover' rulesets for Fantasy
gamers to become historical gamers, and vice versa.
Ray Rangel
I think that PB and RBS have done a great job with DBx. Indeed the
tournament guys seem quite happy with it (you wouldn't believe it if you
read the posts on the DBM list, but tournament attendance doesn't lie).
Historical gamers seem quite happy too, as the rules work quite well for
playing historical scenarios. In fact the publication of the ECW scenario
books for DBR has prompted me to paint 10mm ECW armies for the scenario
called "Newbury I" in the first De Bellis Civile book.
DBM was my first entry into the wonderful world of historical war gaming. It
was for the very reasons that you state. It was easy and painless.
Furthermore I could (and did) start painting an army at the same time I
started research (rather than after) because all I had to do was build to a
predefined list.
That was years ago. Many different periods and rules later, one of the
yardsticks that I still use to gauge the amount of research that has gone
into a set of rules is the way that armies are specified. The distribution
of troop types and equipments available are often telling signs whether the
rules are well researched or not.
I have played in two DBM tournaments. I can see how gamers, being natural
competitors, get caught up in the tournament atmosphere. I found that I
prefer historical games more than competition so I gave tournament play.
Many of my friends in the club play tournament style and love it.
Stan Olson
<snip>
> I doubt if my customers who have hired me to paint everything from Eqyptian
> chariots to German Panzers would think I am ill-serving the historical hobby
> because I don't get my back-up when I see folks playing two armies that aren't
> "in-period".
>
> face like you've just done to me! It's precisely that sort of "I know best"
> attitude that gives us historical gamers the reputation as know-it-all,
> mean-spiritied old farts so many of us richly deserve.
> Martin J. Blow
Stan: It would be nice to see historical matched
games. And so have people aquire-paint-own
the proper ones .
Its something to work towards ....
In the mean time, we will fight
battles that did not occur between
non-geographical opponents ...
But the DBA tourneys I fight in
consist of 5 rounds-games in a fixed era.
So I do face historical opponenets some time
during these events ... thats good enough for me.
Outside of a historical demo-educational
presentation, in a museum or school for eg.
Stan: everyone, peace, paint and be well ...
Stan Olson
>
> The point that has been missed is that Phil Barker is to be congratulated on
> making a period that was in the 'early' days very much in the minority compared
> to napoleonics into a LARGE and viable wargaming era.
>
> He did this by creating decidedly 'fantasy' conflicts. He reduced the demands of
> entry into the period by basically making it possible for gamers to get into
> ancient gaming with little or no knowledge of ancient history or armies. As
> long as they knew the 'lists' and built armies to these admittedly artificial
> standards, they could game against others with little or no additional knowledge
> of the period. This was especially important as the rules themselves allowed
> for very little variance other than between armies. That is, a Roman army was
> in WRG and DBM terms, a Roman army- with little variance of quality, and as the
> rules minimized chance variation, the only possibility of interest was by
> creating contests between ahistorical opponents.
Stan: I Like that DBA or DB* rules are not
about re-enacting specific battles .
That choice is left to the person running
the tournament or public educational demo
(to whether it will be totally historical
not just use various historical armies ).
I also like the campaign system published
in Wargames Illustrated magazine for
DBA HOTTs in Oct.
Stan
moses
John Secker wrote in message ...
>that sentence. If you want to deny that Palmyrans vs Ancient Britons
>(say) is historical gaming, then what is it? Fantasy? If you can't see
>the difference between that and Elves vs Chaos, then I'm sorry for you.
>existed.
Nobody is disputing that Palmyrans and Britons DID exist historically.
There is a difference between using ahistorical opponents and elves et al.
Where do you draw the line? Personally, I think if people's of various
nationality COULD have fought each other, but didn't for whatever reason
(for example: Later Cathaginians vs Helenistic Greek) then it is
semi-historical. (read as ahistorical). If you play Later Swiss vs New
Kingdom Egyptian, then you are playing Fantasy using Historical figurines.
To play Later Swiss vs NKE isn't a far cry from playing Later Swiss vs III
Corps of La Grande Armee under Davout. In fact, it is probably a bit more
reasonable, as the time period is certainly closer. The reason people don't
do this is because technology was increased at a reasonably linear rate
prior to 1500, and at an incredibly logorithmic rate AFTER 1500.
I can build and paint my armies as closely as possible to their
>historic counterparts. I can seek to find (or write) rules which will as
>closely as possible reproduce their behaviour on the field of battle.
>Then I can ask "what if?". What if these nations had clashed?
How? With a time machine?
> Of course
>in actual fact they didn't. Also, in actual fact, Blucher arrived in
>time at Waterloo, but nobody claims that refighting Waterloo with
>Blucher failing to arrive is "not historical gaming". It is simply
>asking "what if?".
And I don't think many people would argue with you.
>Are you claiming that everything that happens in your "historical" games
>actually happened in real life? If so, they must be terribly boring re-
>enactments. If not, then they are ahistorical. So I am going to carry on
>fighting battles between armies which never met in reality, and I am
>going to carry on calling myself a historical wargamer. If that offends
>your neatly categorised view of the world, then tough.
Nah - think you missed the point, or I did. Read my above post, and see if
you agree with that. If you don't, thats ok, you are entitled to your
opinion. To summarise, imho, there are 3 kinds of gaming. 'historical'
which is such and such a battle. 'ahistorial' which is two armies that
either fought each other historically, but not under these particular
conditions - this may be such a thing as a campaign game or a 'lets say
blucher didn't arrive at Waterloo', and finally what others have called
'fantasy' which I don't have a term for, but is totally NON-historical. Fun
maybe, but not historical.
Ian
Steven M Goode
that people will respond to the board so that others can reply)
Excerpts from mail: 25-Dec-98 Re: Anachronistic Ancients .. by "Dan D.
Cyr"@execpc.com
>
> Actually (in my opinion) the problem is with the rules used. Any rules that
> claim to cover more than a fairly brief period of time, and do so
accurately,
> is
> lying.
>
> Any set of rules (for an example) that allows New Kingdom Egyptian (or
Hittite
> s,
> etc.) chariots to have a chance against, say, Early Imperial Romans is silly.
> Not only would the "historical" NKE army be very small compared to the
> "historical" Romans, the weapons, armor, logistics, and tactical systems just
> don't match enough to allow match-ups (and I am only using these two as an
> example as I just played a game with them of DBA).
Sure, Romans were tougher, better organized, etc than NKE. But DBx,
while allowing ahistorical matchups, isn't really designed for them.
The theory is that the overall tactics and technology didn't change that
much over time, so that while later armies were bigger and better
equipped and so forth, the basic ideas about how they fought were
similar. Troop classifications are made based on how the historical
troops did against their historical opponents. Medieval French Knights
are rated as Superior, for example, because they had a reputation as
being better than most of their opponents.
To pit the French against Alexander's Companions would be silly. The
companions would have a chance in the game because their rating is based
on their performance relative to their historical opponents, whereas,
realistically, the Companions would have been totally outclassed.
What I'm really trying to say here is that DBx rules are designed on the
idea of RELATIVE effectiveness - how well did army A do against its
historical opponent B. It is NOT based on some sort of absolute scale.
Thus ahistorical matches look especially silly in DBx as opposed to a
set of rules that makes an ABSOLUTE evalutation of troop effectiveness.
It's not the set of rules that's silly, it's the use of them for
ahistorical matchups.
(NOTE: "silly" is not meant in a pejorative sense. Ahistorical battles
can be fun, too, and feel free to play whatever you want.)
Bonnie Walker
Just a question. are we sooooooo involved in defineing ourselves that we
forget to enjoy the game we are participateing in. We are playing war
GAMES I'd really rather put the accent on the later rather then the
former. I really think that people that are puritanical zealots (damn those
are two groups seperated by thousand years and thousands of miles I guess I'll
be branded a non historical gamer) drive more people out of gameing then they
draw in. I got interested in gameing from plastic army men (a very very un
historical situation but great fun for a 10 year old) and the best games I've
played are the ones where everyone was playing for FUN and in a friendly
atmosphere. The worst games I've played is where someone spent 50 % of the
time argueing obscure rules
and the other 50% argueing that something that is allowed by the rules isn't
"historical" (strangely in both cases his point of rule or point of history
produced an outcome that benifited him tremendously)
Historical Gameing is a hobby, it is varried and yes sometimes "What if" is
deciededly fantasy ( such as death rays form space, or ummmm airplanes without
propellers, or ummm unpiloted robotic rockets that home in on ships and destroy
them) but lets enjoy the hobby, includeing rather then excludeing people.
Ray Rangel
Bonnie Walker wrote in message <3685ACB1...@earthlink.net>...
>
>Just a question. are we sooooooo involved in defineing ourselves that we
>forget to enjoy the game we are participateing in. We are playing war
>GAMES I'd really rather put the accent on the later rather then the
>former. I really think that people that are puritanical zealots (damn
those
>are two groups seperated by thousand years and thousands of miles I guess
I'll
>be branded a non historical gamer) drive more people out of gameing then
they
>draw in
Point 1. No one in this thread has belittled anyone for playing the games
that they like to play. Nor has anyone said that fantasy gaming is any less
fun, any less valid than any other type of gaming.
Point 2. Anyone who shows up at one of our game nights will likely find
themselves involved in a historical scenario or playing Sky Galleons of
Mars. There are no puritanical zealots in this thread.
Point 3. The point I made that got a couple of folks all astir was that
calling games involving armies that could not ever have met because of time
and space "historical games" does two things. First it misleads people who
might be new to gaming into thinking that historical gamers don't know
diddly about history. Second, it slights those people who spend endless
hours researching history to create rules and scenarios to provide us with
historical games.
John Secker
<bonn...@earthlink.net> writes
>
>Just a question. are we sooooooo involved in defineing ourselves that we
>forget to enjoy the game we are participateing in. We are playing war
>GAMES I'd really rather put the accent on the later rather then the
>former. I really think that people that are puritanical zealots (damn those
>are two groups seperated by thousand years and thousands of miles I guess I'll
>be branded a non historical gamer) drive more people out of gameing then they
>historical situation but great fun for a 10 year old) and the best games I've
>played are the ones where everyone was playing for FUN and in a friendly
>atmosphere. The worst games I've played is where someone spent 50 % of the
>time argueing obscure rules
>and the other 50% argueing that something that is allowed by the rules isn't
>"historical" (strangely in both cases his point of rule or point of history
>produced an outcome that benifited him tremendously)
>
>
>Historical Gameing is a hobby, it is varried and yes sometimes "What if" is
>deciededly fantasy ( such as death rays form space, or ummmm airplanes without
>propellers, or ummm unpiloted robotic rockets that home in on ships and destroy
>them) but lets enjoy the hobby, includeing rather then excludeing people.
>
--
John Secker
cronical
> The point that has been missed is that Phil Barker is to be congratulated on
> making a period that was in the 'early' days very much in the minority
compared
> to napoleonics into a LARGE and viable wargaming era.
>
> He did this by creating decidedly 'fantasy' conflicts.
No, Phil Barker didnšt do this. The origin of these łfantasy˛ conflicts
lies in the games played by Tony Bath in Southampton, England. Phil Barker
learned about these and became interested enough to eventually quit his
job and devote his working career to wargaming. He is the Apostle Paul to
Tony Bathšs Jesus, if thatšs not too blasphemous an analogy.
[big snip]
>
> Phil has created a stronger interest in ancients than could ever have
existed if
> the 'Napoleonic' mindset has settled in. But, it has to be remembered
that the
> lack of definitive info allows this, in a very real way much of the
'history' in
> most wargamer's ancient wargames is whatever Phil Barker and Bodley say it is!
>
> As long as they have the good sense to never allow Hannibal's elephants to fly
> they will remain the standard for many ancient wargamers.
>
So, to continue the religious analogy, Phil has established himself as the
Pope of ancient wargaming. And now he has anointed a successor. This is a
disaster for the hobby, since neither of them is a trained historian. It
is almost impossible to find people who are ancient wargamers who can
discuss ancient military history in terms other than those laid down by
the Wargames Research Group.
Ray Rangel
>lies in the games played by Tony Bath in Southampton, England. Phil Barker
>learned about these and became interested enough to eventually quit his
>job and devote his working career to wargaming. He is the Apostle Paul to
>Tony Bathšs Jesus, if thatšs not too blasphemous an analogy.
>
And Alexander Graham Bell didn't invent the telephone...but he gets credit
because he got to the patent office first and made the telephone marketable.
DBx may have its roots in other game systems, but what rules don't? The
credit has to go to PB and RBS for publishing a rule system that has drawn
hundreds of former WRG and new players into the hobby. By the way, PB in the
DBA rules and DBM (up to 1.3 anyway) says that the rules are not designed to
be used with ahistorical match-ups. He doesn't say why, but I suspect it's
because each armies ratings are in relation to other armies of the same
date.
>So, to continue the religious analogy, Phil has established himself as the
>Pope of ancient wargaming. And now he has anointed a successor. This is a
>disaster for the hobby, since neither of them is a trained historian. It
>is almost impossible to find people who are ancient wargamers who can
>discuss ancient military history in terms other than those laid down by
>the Wargames Research Group.
>
In perfect world, perhaps, all game designers would be vocational historians
as well. That PB is simply an avocational historian is a disaster for the
hobby is a ridiculous statement. What would have been a disaster is if no
one had stepped forward to publish rules to draw all the souls lost to
disgust with WRG. (Before the WRG 7th players start sending me hate
mail...I'm not judging the game, simply reflecting many people's attitudes
toward it.) If people don't care to do any research on their own and accept
whatever a rules designer says as fact, you can hardly blame the designer.
cronical
<xr...@texas.net> wrote:
> And Alexander Graham Bell didn't invent the telephone...but he gets credit
> because he got to the patent office first and made the telephone marketable.
Well, that零 a shame, isn靖 it? It零 cheating someone out of their due
credit, no?
> DBx may have its roots in other game systems, but what rules don't? The
> credit has to go to PB and RBS for publishing a rule system that has drawn
> hundreds of former WRG and new players into the hobby.
This is getting confusing. What time-frame are we talking about? We靶e had
anachronistic ancients since the late 1960s. The whole concept drew
hundreds of people into the hobby, especially after the original series of
WRG ancients rules made it possible to have a common table-top language.
Then hundreds of people left, and one reason many of them cited was that
they were fed up with the rules changes in successive editions every three
years or so.
> That PB is simply an avocational historian is a disaster for the
> hobby is a ridiculous statement.
I can靖 argue with that - because that statement in itself is not an
argument. It is a dismissal, of the type the Britons who founded ancient
wargaming and the Society of Ancients made popular. I would encourage
anyone who thought PB零 lack of historical training was not disastrous to
examine the history of wargaming treatment of Alexander零 hypaspists. We
now have a troop type marching across our table-top battlefields that has
the most tenuous basis in historical fact. PB零 slipshod methods have also
contributed to the bizarre Late Roman lists of WRG 6th edition, and the
逾rrible 酩ns rule of editions prior to 5th. Finally, there is the
incident of the Scots-Irish Roman legionaries, which he got from an
historical novel. When I took issue with this he directed me to John
Morris零 Age of Arthur. When I looked at this to see what arguments he had
draw from, I foundothing.
> If people don't care to do any research on their own and accept
> whatever a rules designer says as fact, you can hardly blame the designer.
I don靖. I blame PB for his insulting treatment of people who do research
and suggest that his historical reconstructions are faulty. If you were a
member of the Society of Ancients at any time, and especially during the
late 1970s and early 1980s, you will have seen this supercilious manner at
work. In his position as the most important ancient wargame rules writer
in the world, he could afford to be a little more gracious toward people
who have no hope of achieving the degree of influence he wields. With
power comes responsibility.
I have had a number of exchanges with PB during the 1990s in the pages of
Slingshot. I have always stood by the view that he has made a considerable
contribution to the hobby of ancient wargaming, for which he has received
significant recognition. But I also believe he has done considerable
damage to the hobby through his failings as an historian.
Dennis Ugolini
> Once again. I didn't denigrate anyone. I simply stated that playing
> out-of-period foes isn't historical gaming. It's not better or worse, it's
> just NOT historical.
Though I have no doubt of your intentions, I just wanted to point out the
following quote from one of your earlier posts, the one that set off Martin J.:
>>Play with your toys the way you want. I makes no difference to me. But if
>>you match up armies "separated by thousands miles and thousands of years"
>>PLEASE don't pretend to be playing a historical game. It does a disservice
>>to the many fine gamers and avocational historians that put untold hours
>>of research and effort into creating historical GAMES.
This seems to imply that ahistorical gamers are somehow 'lesser', that they
are either incapable or unwilling to invest the necessary effort for a
truly 'historical' game. This seems to be a needless slap at those gamers
who do invest this level of effort and expertise, but still want to bash
any old armies on the occasional rainy afternoon. I'd wager that if you
addressed this point, it would end the argument (if it hasn't already ended,
I'm a couple of days behind).
Dennis Ugolini
ugo...@leland.stanford.edu
moses
Dennis Ugolini wrote in message <76836u$i38$1...@lnsnews.lns.cornell.edu>...
>>>Play with your toys the way you want. I makes no difference to me. But if
>>>you match up armies "separated by thousands miles and thousands of years"
>>>PLEASE don't pretend to be playing a historical game. It does a
disservice
>>>to the many fine gamers and avocational historians that put untold hours
>>>of research and effort into creating historical GAMES.
>
>This seems to imply that ahistorical gamers are somehow 'lesser', that they
>are either incapable or unwilling to invest the necessary effort for a
>truly 'historical' game. This seems to be a needless slap at those gamers
>who do invest this level of effort and expertise, but still want to bash
>any old armies on the occasional rainy afternoon. I'd wager that if you
>addressed this point, it would end the argument (if it hasn't already
ended,
>I'm a couple of days behind).
Hiya Dennis,
Although I am not the author of the above post, I think (after following
the tread) that that post was likely posted in a typographical form of
frustration. Many people seemed to have gotten on Ray's back for stating
such things as 'playing a game with miniatures from NKE vs Late Imperial
Romans is not Historical gaming'. Please note the above is NOT a quote,
just a feeling I have for what Ray was trying to say. The response to this
was similar to 'You say I'm not a historical gamer????? How dare you. Why
don't you shove your opinionated crap up your own butt' etc! Again, not a
quote, just a feeling for what many have hinted at!
Yesterday I fought huge DBM 'lets line them up and let god sort them
out' game. On one side we had (from left to right) Some form of Persian -
later Achemenid I think, Greek Hoplites, Early Achemenid Persians, Later
Imperial Romans, New Kingdom Egyptians. Opposing this we had: a mixed force
of some unidentified LightHorse Superior, Carthaginians (Including
elephants) Samurai (THAT was a wild card :) ), Polybian romans, dark ages
troops (vikings and such forth), and some kind of Regular X Knights. Gawd,
it was fun. Had a ball. Never once considered that it was remotely
historical. At one point one player said 'what are they?'. I said
"Superior Spear". 'Who's?' "Later Achemenid Persian Guards!" 'but they can
only have 2, not 6' "oh, (look at list), you are right. Oh well" and then
we laughed and continued fighting.
In a few weeks time I want to play a historical game. It will likely be
something like Hoplites vs Persians. THIS will be historical, the other
thing sited above, is not! I don't feel that Ray degraded my fun, or in any
way indicated that I was not a historical gamer. On the rare occasion I've
been known to role play - this is NOT historical (although I suppose I COULD
be).
I am a gamer. I play historical games, and I play other games. You CAN
be both you know!
Yours in gamemanship
Ian
P.S. - I think this will be my last post to this thread!
MRTINJ
>Though I have no doubt of your intentions, I just wanted to point out the
>following quote from one of your earlier posts, the one that set off Martin
>J.:
>
>>>Play with your toys the way you want. I makes no difference to me. But if
>>>you match up armies "separated by thousands miles and thousands of years"
>>>PLEASE don't pretend to be playing a historical game. It does a disservice
>>>to the many fine gamers and avocational historians that put untold hours
>>>of research and effort into creating historical GAMES.
>
>This seems to imply that ahistorical gamers are somehow 'lesser', that they
>are either incapable or unwilling to invest the necessary effort for a
>truly 'historical' game. This seems to be a needless slap at those gamers
>who do invest this level of effort and expertise, but still want to bash
>any old armies on the occasional rainy afternoon. I'd wager that if you
>addressed this point, it would end the argument (if it hasn't already ended,
>I'm a couple of days behind).
>
>Dennis Ugolini
>ugo...@leland.stanford.edu
>
>
Okay, I had every intention of staying off this thread, but since my name was
used in vain :)
What set my hair afire was -
a) Xmas - my apologies, but I was a little touchy in the days leading up to the
holiday..
b) Mr. Rangel's assertion that folks who didn't agree with his POV were doing a
"disservice to the [historical miniature hobby]."
c) Mr. Rangel's assertion that if you played ahistorical or pseudo-historical
games you were not a historical gamer.
[Rant mode ON] Now, IMHO, I am a historical gamer because I say I am a
historical gamer. And not because I am vetted or my games are approved by
anyone in some nebulous higher authority. The books and figures I purchase and
the hours I spend painting them up and organizing them make me a historical
gamer - not by necessity the games I play. [Rant mode OFF].
Now if Mr. Rangel would have merely said that battle between New Kindom
Eqyptian and Medieval Burgundians were unhistorical, I would have not had any
issue with him. He was absolutely right - such an encouter could never have
happened and I don't pretend to believe that you can quantify the differences
between such armies in any realistically meaningful way.
But to dismiss such a game as "mere fantasy ", apparently equating it with
battles between Dwarves and Elves and Orcs taking place in the Warhammer
Universe, strikes me as a tad hard on the people involved.
Perhaps the folks involved have different interests - one dotes on the biblical
era and the other belongs to the SFCA (SCA?) and longs to hear the clash of
swords on plate mail. But at this moment, with time on their hands and a
common set of rules, they point out a couple of their favorite armies and play
"what if".
The historical hobby and its enthuasists were not ill-served by such an
encounter. Especially if the biblical player starts asking about 15th century
Swiss and the Medieval player begins to wonder if Sargon was "just" a chess
game on his computer or if it was also the name of a powerful king of ancient
Assyria.
And perhaps extra figures both guys have lying about (and who doesn't!) get
swapped. And eventually, in the fullness of time, Burgundians will give battle
to Swiss and Eqyptians wil once morel meet Assyrians on the plain of Meggido.
Such is to be hoped.
Pseudo-historical games can serve as a very useful doorway into another
"ancient" period. The matchups between a "Classical" era army (ie, Romans or
Macedonians) and a "Dark Age" era army (in this case, Byzantines) led me into a
ten year interest in the pre-medieval era that has fascinated me to this day.
Which might have not happened if I had never watched my Macedonian phalangists
get shot to bloodly bits by Sassinid Persian heavy cavalry. I had already
purchased the lead to build Republican Romans, Late Achamenid Persians and
Indians - but the encounter made me change my plans.
It drove me to build a Byzantine army about as quick as I could - and now my
Norman allies are growing into an Italo-Norman army of their own (I can't
resist having an army led by Robert the Weasel!).
With regards to the army lists of Phil Barker and their historical accuracy - I
don't care. I like army lists because in the past my gaming pleasure was often
held hostage by a) the research of the most imaginative person in my circle of
friend and b) the most informed person in said gaming circle.
The first person would present an army list that truely was fantastic, by which
I mean almost wholy imaginary. And then I, like a teacher reviewing a
historical term paper, would have to dispute and try to correct his lack of
research with research of my own. Not a lot of fun.
The second person would present an army list like he was Moses delivering the
ten commandments. And if you disputed with him about anything he wished to
field, he would merely point you to his bookshelves groaning with Livy and
Polebius and Virgil and state "prove me wrong".
Right or wrong, Barker leveled the field. Armies took recognizable form that
everyone was forced to deal with. And if you wished to contest what Mr. Barker
and his associates had written, all you had to do was produce three sources
that proved your POV and get the agreement of a majority of the folks in the
group. Problem solved.
It also served the very useful purpose of giving figure manufacturers something
to guide their future releases upon. Very pretty figures for some very obscure
armies have become available simply because a popular rulesets gave a pretty
extensive army list for them (Khmer and Burmese anyone?). :)
I've rambled on too much, especially for a guy who said he had retired from
this particular field a few days ago. Once again, my apologies in advance to
Mr. Randel if he takes offence at anything I might say or have said in the
past - none was meant. Just an honest difference in opinion most strongly and
perhaps, too impulsively, stated.
Sorry to be wasting bandwidth. ;)
Martin J. Blow
John Secker
<ugo...@mail.lns.cornell.edu> writes
>In article <1FSg2.11628$M3....@news2.giganews.com>, "Ray Rangel"
><xr...@texas.net> writes:
>> Once again. I didn't denigrate anyone. I simply stated that playing
>> out-of-period foes isn't historical gaming. It's not better or worse, it's
>> just NOT historical.
>
>following quote from one of your earlier posts, the one that set off Martin J.:
>
>>>Play with your toys the way you want. I makes no difference to me. But if
>>>you match up armies "separated by thousands miles and thousands of years"
>>>PLEASE don't pretend to be playing a historical game. It does a disservice
>>>to the many fine gamers and avocational historians that put untold hours
>>>of research and effort into creating historical GAMES.
>
>This seems to imply that ahistorical gamers are somehow 'lesser', that they
>are either incapable or unwilling to invest the necessary effort for a
>truly 'historical' game. This seems to be a needless slap at those gamers
>who do invest this level of effort and expertise, but still want to bash
>any old armies on the occasional rainy afternoon. I'd wager that if you
>addressed this point, it would end the argument (if it hasn't already ended,
>I'm a couple of days behind).
>
paragraph you quoted is 'snobbery', and that is what has riled a number
of people. It is the attitude of the academic (or pseudo-academic) who
has laid claim to a title, in this case 'historical', and doesn't want
any of the great unwashed sullying it.
--
John Secker
tn...@pop.phnx.uswest.net
Last week we played 1000 pts per side DBM . The Alex Imperials and
Spartans vs Marion Romans and Polyibian Romans.Good fun, I got creamed [Romans].
And this was never intended to be a historical match up ,No Dah !This sat. I`m
breaking out the 15mm Orks , Skellys, Elves, Dwarfs, Humans and whatever else
,to play a 1500 pt per side DBM Fanasty battle, should be a hoot. And than will
go back to playing Johnny Reb 111, only 2 armies has to be historical, and DBM
with historical opponents, thats the way we like to play Ancients and Medievals,
just sometimes does`nt work out that way.As long as your having fun,thats
important.
Historical and sometimes
Fanasty Gamer
Tom in Az
moses wrote:
> Dennis Ugolini wrote in message <76836u$i38$1...@lnsnews.lns.cornell.edu>...
> >>>Play with your toys the way you want. I makes no difference to me. But if
> >>>you match up armies "separated by thousands miles and thousands of years"
> >>>PLEASE don't pretend to be playing a historical game. It does a
> disservice
> >>>to the many fine gamers and avocational historians that put untold hours
> >>>of research and effort into creating historical GAMES.
> >
> >This seems to imply that ahistorical gamers are somehow 'lesser', that they
> >are either incapable or unwilling to invest the necessary effort for a
> >truly 'historical' game. This seems to be a needless slap at those gamers
> >who do invest this level of effort and expertise, but still want to bash
> >any old armies on the occasional rainy afternoon. I'd wager that if you
> >addressed this point, it would end the argument (if it hasn't already
> ended,
> >I'm a couple of days behind).
>
Ray Rangel
all started anew. Yikes! I will attempt to answer two people with one post.
I hope it doesn't get too confusing.
>>This seems to imply that ahistorical gamers are somehow 'lesser', that
they
>>are either incapable or unwilling to invest the necessary effort for a
>>truly 'historical' game. This seems to be a needless slap at those gamers
>>who do invest this level of effort and expertise, but still want to bash
>>any old armies on the occasional rainy afternoon. I'd wager that if you
>>addressed this point, it would end the argument (if it hasn't already
ended,
>>I'm a couple of days behind).
>>
Any "implication" is in your own mind. I took great pains to make sure that
everyone unstands that I too play fantasy games and I have had many
enjoyable games using ahistorical armies match-ups. I have the utmost
respect for those that take the time and effort to create fantasy games for
the rest of us to enjoy. Those individuals have earned our respect and
admiration. By the same token those persons who put the effort into the
research and history to create battles for the table top have earned at
least the same consideration.
>b) Mr. Rangel's assertion that folks who didn't agree with his POV were
doing a
>"disservice to the [historical miniature hobby]."
Not so. I never said that. What I said was that representing ahistorical
games as historical gaming misleading people into thinking that's what
historical gaming is. In addition I said that calling these mix and match
battles "historical" slights those persons who put a great deal of effort
into creating historical scenarios.
>c) Mr. Rangel's assertion that if you played ahistorical or
pseudo-historical
>games you were not a historical gamer.
>
True. The logic is non-judgemental and inescapable.
>[Rant mode ON] Now, IMHO, I am a historical gamer because I say I am a
>historical gamer. And not because I am vetted or my games are approved by
>anyone in some nebulous higher authority. The books and figures I purchase
and
>the hours I spend painting them up and organizing them make me a historical
>gamer - not by necessity the games I play. [Rant mode OFF].
>
You can say that you're the president too...that doesn't make it so.
>Now if Mr. Rangel would have merely said that battle between New Kindom
>Eqyptian and Medieval Burgundians were unhistorical, I would have not had
any
>issue with him. He was absolutely right - such an encouter could never
have
>happened and I don't pretend to believe that you can quantify the
differences
>between such armies in any realistically meaningful way.
>
Ta-dah! Eureka, I think he's got it!
>But to dismiss such a game as "mere fantasy ", apparently equating it with
>battles between Dwarves and Elves and Orcs taking place in the Warhammer
>Universe, strikes me as a tad hard on the people involved.
>
Oh well, almost had it... I think you're being a tad hard on the Warhammer
folks...
>Perhaps the folks involved have different interests - one dotes on the
biblical
>era and the other belongs to the SFCA (SCA?) and longs to hear the clash of
>swords on plate mail. But at this moment, with time on their hands and a
>common set of rules, they point out a couple of their favorite armies and
play
>"what if".
>
Absolutely! I've played many such games. They can be great fun. Guess what?
When *I* play such games, *I* am not gaming historically and therefore, at
that particular instant in time, *I* too am indulging in a fantasy!
<<Major snippage here 'cuz I agree with most of what is said. When I got
started it was with a club that was gearing up for a tournament so I cut my
teeth on ahistorical games. I had a lot of fun too.>>
Ross Macfarlane
>
> this particular field a few days ago. Once again, my apologies in advance to
> Mr. Randel if he takes offence at anything I might say or have said in the
> past - none was meant. Just an honest difference in opinion most strongly and
> perhaps, too impulsively, stated.
>
> Sorry to be wasting bandwidth. ;)
>
> Martin J. Blow
I don't think you're wasting band width, I think that was a well reasoned and
presented point
of view, (despite the fact that I agree with it). I would just like to add 2
things, one is that using historical
figures and rules in non-historical games is not really an ancients preserve, this
is just the most obvious
one because of the time zome factor. Disregarding the many Soviets invade Germany
and no uses nukes
games I have seen many Napoleonic armies seperated in Time (by up to 20 years) and
space - Russians
vs Spanish?? face each other on the field of battle, as well as armies of mixed
French, Russian and Bavarian
troops in uniforms ranging from 1700 to 1770 taking on various British, Prussians
etc not to mention such
things as Germans fighting Redcoated British in 1880's africa. In many of these
cases these gamers play a
mix of historical and unhistorical games, some plausible some not. Once the game is
going most find little
difference as they are often looking for a game with tactics and flavour rather
than an academic exercise and whether
the enemy has red coats or blue, chainmail or spolas becomes secondary to
out-thinking the enemy general,
which leads to my next point which has been made in some measure by other people.
Not all of these non-historical ancient games are as crazy as they seem. Yes
there are military and social differences
between Scythians, Huns and 16thC Tartars but there are also great similarities,
many other armies have similar
counterparts, 15thC Irish armies which faced Plate armour and longbows were really
little different from Celtic
armies of a 1,000 years earlier when essential tactics and equipment are
considered. I haven't played any of these
cross-era games in years but have enjoyed many in the past and would be quite
willing to do so again. If I
think about it at all, I tend to think of the opponant as being of a more/less
advanced culture which has been encountered
rather than as teleported through time, but I don't really think it matters, I just
put my self in the little metal/plastic
general's shoes and sound the trumpets to call my men to battle.
- Ross