Comments on: Open Letter to Ancient/WRG Gamers and Sam Maxwell, reply about Medieval Knight, Cheap Figures, and The Cost of Figures.

Open Letter to WRG Gamers and Sam Maxwell

An unfortunate conjunction of two items in the last issue served to give credence to the perception that The Courier is anti-ancients or anti-WRG. Nothing could be further from the truth. Not too long ago, I was being chastised by the readership and some advertisers for being too pro-WRG or Pro-Phil Barker!

The Courier uses cartoons as "Fillers". I have a few on hand and when there is a blank spot I can't fill with an advertisement. I drop in a cartoon. This usually happens just as the issue is ready to go to print, and I am rushed to get it out the door. So I never looked at the cartoon on Egyptian Armor close enough to spot the "Wreely Rotten Games" title on the rule book depicted. I apologize for the slur this implies against WRG - it was not intentional on the part of The Courier.

My reply to the letter to Sam Maxwell came across as much harsher than I intended. In reviewing my remarks, I see that they suggest that only Ancient gamers have an over-analytical approach to the games they play.

That is wrong. It does appall me when a gamer in any period, with any rules, approach the tactics with only an understanding of what the rules tell him they should be rather than what an understanding of the historical context tells him they should be. I have indeed observed gamers in every period with this attitude.

Gamers whose total understanding of Napoleonic warfare (for instance) is based on the Napoleonic rule set they are familiar with rather than any reading in the history of the period. When an opponent suggested that my fielding an Egyptian army (WRG 5th Ed) against him was foolish because his "expectation of kill" was fractionaily higher than mine, I just about lost all interest in gaming the period until I found other Ancient opponents. He had worked out the statistics of every situation he could think of in the rules and played his games as if he were some computer program. He completely missed the point that I painted the army because I liked the looks of it and enjoyed learning to run it - not because I thought it was going to be the next "killer" army.

In my uncalled-for remarks to Sam Maxwell, I was gut-reacting to that and other similar bad experiences. Paul Georgian, President of NASAMW, correctly pointed out that Sam was analyzing the rules to determine how he could make historical tactics and outcomes happen in his games a most laudable effort that we should all endeavor to emulate in all our rules sets. My apologies to Sam Maxwell. - DICK BRYANT

Back to Top of Dispatches

Dr. Bunker Replies to Matthew Bennet about Medieval Knights

I read Matthew Bennett's critique of my article "The Knight in Historical Miniatures: Realism and Playability as Mutually Exclusive Concepts" with careful consideration. His criticisms center around the premise that I got almost all the facts concerning feudal warfare wrong due to my faulty use of historical evidence and its subsequent interpretation.

Besides alluding to my lack of proper scholarship in this matter, he questions the credibility of such recognized military scholars as Charles Oman, and Trevor Dupuy and Martin Van Creveld who were directly quoted in my article. While I readily expected my article, which was written for a general audience, to generate controversy amongst miniatures wargamers I did not expect the premises behind it, premises based ultimately on sound military scholarship, to be seriously questioned.

For the sake of brevity, I will now address only a few of the themes, found in Matthew Bennett's critique and provide a counter-argument to his alternate interpretation of feudal warfare. His is an interpretation which while divergent from my own and rich in historical imagination, does not in my mind accurately reflect the conduct of feudal warfare or the mutual exclusiveness of realism and playability that it generates.

A. Feudal warfare as somehow not warfare as we know it. I have argued that, because of the immense importance of the ethical/ideological structure of society which mirrors material culture, earlier eras of warfare can not be blindly critiqued by modern military standards. What makes .military sense' for one era does not then have to make military sense for another era. Hence feudal warfare, dynastic warfare and even absolutist warfare for that matter are each unique periods of warfare based on differing energy sources, energy exploiting technologies, weapon systems, conceptions of the soldier and rules of war. Warfare as we now know it is, to be precise, an "extension of politics by other means" between nation-states a la Clausewitz and even this definition is becoming obsolete with the advent of post-modern warfare based on terrorism.

B. Feudal warfare as an elaborate charade designed to sustain the class system. The stratification of society is indeed an elaborate charade. Bennett makes it sound like this is a wild revelation. Society is held together by rationalizations as to why the society is stratified the way it is (why some people are rich and others poor) and why the prevailing form of government is legitimate (hence just). The greatest single barrier to change between eras is the entrenched social classes within the society and the army. Power structures are status quo seeking because those individuals, families, groups and institutions which form the power structure have nothing to gain and potentially everything to lose from societal change. Incrementalism is the preferred decision making method under such circumstances because it is least likely to alter the status quo.

The prevailing concept of the soldier helps to form part of this barrier. It serves as an inhibitor to major change because that concept of the soldier ideologically reinforces the current army structure and weapon systems. Major change under such circumstances besides being socio-technologic in nature thus results in power redistribution within the society and the army with some social classes decreasing in power and others rising in power. A prime example of this mechanism is the Germanic freenian warrior who became a serf with the rise of feudal cavalry. This form of change is also disruptive to the day-to-day workings of society because all of the old societal institutions have to be rebuilt around periodic qualitative advances in energy exploiting technologies. Little wonder that significant institutional barriers exist against change including the prevailing form of warfare, be it feudal, dynastic or absolutist.

C. Feudal armies as composed solely of knights. A knight was considered of 'Society'- a footsoldier was not. While footsoldiers did exist, they were basically insignificant and this is the reason why scholars such as Van Creveld state that a feudal army was composed solely of knights. Infantry would indeed come into its own during a siege but sieges were long arduous affairs beyond the logistical stamina of the majority of feudal armies. It should be remembered that a well sited castle with a stockpile of foodstuffs and water was all but invincible to a feudal field army prior to the advent of gunpowder based weaponry. Even then it wasn't until the Invasion of Italy in 1494-96 by the revolutionary army of Charles VIII that the castle became fully obsolete.

D. C3I structure of a feudal army. When I stated that no rank structure existed under no circumstances did I seek to "...impose modern concepts of an army upon a feudal host." Exactly the opposite is true. Societal status based on fief holding and represented by heraldry and banners is, contrary to Bennett's argument, not a military rank structure. It is an attribute of the prevailing noble class structure and results in an army with limited command and control capacity.

E. Knightly cavalry as unable to maneuver. For cavalry to maneuver, a maneuver base is required. The castle replaced infantry as a refuge for heavy cavalry which is vulnerable on the defensive. Two opposing battles of knights are thus unable to maneuver against each other and instead engage in frontal charges. This lack of tactical sophistication is apparent against a sophisticated military system such as the Mongols. In the invasion of Central Europe in 1241-42, the Mongol toumans decimated Christian armies that totaled five times their own forces.

F. Alleged 'alien' attitudes. To say that the spiritual kingdom on Earth which feudal society represented based on clergy (oratores), knights (belliatores) and serfs (agricultores) is not 'alien' to modern attitudes is completely false. I also suppose then that Bennett would argue that the feudal perception of money as sterile (because it was inorganic and did not breed like animals) and the ban on usury (if money was sterile then it was morally wrong to charge for its use) represent an economic theory that differs little from modern capitalism.

G. Knightly classes as unwilling to use new weapons. These new weapons were initially resisted as can be seen in the various bans against them. It was only with the death of the feudal age that the nobles had no choice but to take up these new weapons if they were to retain any of their former military dominance. A select group of knights from the feudal era were able to transform themselves into the dynastic princes of the following period. Additionally, many knights were able to make the transition into successful mercenary captains.

H. That there are constraints to gaming in the feudal period. I agree that nothing prevents the gaming of feudal warfare. My observation just happens to be that realism and playability are mutually exclusive during the feudal era in Europe. To be more specific Oman's Supremacy of Feudal Cavalry era from 1066 to 1346. Historical exceptions do exist but generally Oman accurately describes the era. Attempts at historical reductionism will not alter this fact. The example of William the Bastard's combined arms army, set in 1066, predates this time period. Edward I, on the other hand, was fighting in the periphery of the European system in Wales. Such campaigns would be akin to the Crusades in the Holy lands or the campaigns of the Teutonic Knights on the Baltic Coast. Inter-European conflict as would be expected is far different than intra-European conflict. - Dr. Robert J. Bunker, Claremont, CA

Back to Top of Dispatches

Buying Cheap Figures Not a Good Idea

I have just read your letter in the Vanguard section of The Courier #61. I would like to correct some mistakes about the anti-lead legislation and costs.

1. Residual lead in pots is NOT a problem, to replace a good quality pot is only around 600 (pounds) . This Could not justify a manufacturer's price rise. 2. Many firms operate solely on being cheaper than their rivals. Chariot do not see trying to unfairly undercut American firms by trying to export lead as at all beneficial to anybody. We will continue to sell on quality alone. 3. To quote your article "keep the market honest by buying the pewter figures at the lowest prices offered." This is a grave error. The facts are that figures are GROSSLY UNDER-PRICED at present and that access to rubbish lead for casting, pitiful wage rates, insecurity of employment all combine to provide "cheap Figures". Cheap figures are at the worker and designers expense. What do your readers consider a good wage? I have found the answer often to be a lot more than I can afford to pay my staff. Conclusion: Do not go cheap, go quality. You get what you pay for. - J.E. Davies, Owner, Chariot Miniatures, England.

Back to Top of Dispatches

What Controls the Price of Figures?

In your editorial (#60 - ED) you note that the change to pewter figure will only produce a moderate cost increase since "the major cost of a figure is in the labor and not in the material". While I am quite prepared to believe this as an objective fact, for years manufacturers in the wargame industry have argued the contrary. Each new price increase was justified with sorrowful statements from manufacturers about the deep regrets felt about having to raise prices, but they had held the line for so long, and the price of metal had gone through the roof, so the company would have no choice but to pass the price increase along to the poor, hapless gamer. Alas and alack.

I admit that I have not conducted an extensive search of either the U.S. or British gaming magazines for exact quotations on this point. I have, however, found several references in The Courier to the relationship between the price of metal and the price of figures, particularly with regard to the hope that since metal prices have fallen, perhaps figure prices would be reduced accordingly. you may have a better memory than I, but I do not recall the price of Figures coming down at those times. (please see your own instructive article in Vol. I, No. 2; Steve Carpenter's wish for the hobby, Vol.I, No. 3, pg. 46; The Courier dispatch, Vol I No. 5, Pg. 37; The Courier Dispatch, Vol. II, No. 1, pg. 29; and the memorable Minifigs editorial response in Vol.II, No. 4, pg.39.)

Two additional points. first , I do not believe that you or The Courier are in any way whatsoever the stalking horse of any "evil manufacturers" I have known and trusted you and The Courier too long even to consider such a thought. Second, I have a very strong recollection that the rise in cost of metal is an often-cited reason for the increase in figure prices. This all leads me to conclude that either the price of labor has not gone up significantly in the last two decades or the price of metal was never really as important to the price increases as manufacturers asserted.

Perhaps some manufacturers simply wanted an opportunity to raise prices along the way. Again, manufacturers are in business and are entitled to make a profit. I would only hope that they would have the courage and honesty to admit that in order to secure their profits, they are going to raise the prices. A price increase is a price increase (even the automobile manufacturers admitted that the line item "ADP" meant "additional dealer profit'. Only in Washington does a "tax" masquerade as a " contribution" or "spending" wear the verbal camouflage of an "investment" -A. Komillers, Chevy Clase, MD.

You make some very good points. It would seem that whatever the mix of labor and metal in the cost of a figure, the price goes up regardless of which of the two went up and by how much. Further cost reductions in either are never seldom, if ever, passed along. However, we must all finally accept the fact that many of the manufacturers (most of whom are hobbyists and enjoy the hobby themselves) this is their livelihood and must make a fairly large profit in a limited market to be able to do it full time. We at the Courier all have "day jobs". I once calculated that for all three partners to go full time would require a price increase of The Courier to $25 a copy! -- Dick Bryant

Back to Top of Dispatches

This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web.
Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com