DOESN'T LIKE THE 7TH EDITION
I find it very hard to believe that Mr. Barker honestly believes that there is almost universal adulation for the Seventh Edition. I'm the fellow who distributed the "Keep the Sixth Edition" buttons at Historicon in Washington last August; and I soon discovered that many players shared my views.
There are many reasons why I don't like the Seventh Edition. The rules have so many holes that I find it hard to believe that they were play-tested fort wo years. The weapons sub-section has many flaws. Heavy-throwing equipped troops can fight a rank and a half deep on subsequent terms of combat, perhaps in an attempt to reflect the superior swordsmanship of legionaries, yet it also applies to irregular Franks. Darts cannot be used as you charge or countercharge for secondary shooting; yet troops with JLS and HTW can use both at contact. The shooting rules on page 39 reads "Mounted bows and foot crossbows shoot from behind one such rank at full effect." Because of this, two historically accurate formations cannot be used: close order crossbowmen cannot fire from behind foot equipped with LTS and pavise; and Byzantine cavalry cannot fire their bows over a front rank armed with lance and dart (yet, a strict interpretation of the rules allows the second rank Byzantine cavalry to shoot with bows as they charge or counter charge). Stakes are too effective against infantry, where they count as a defended obstacle. Most surprising of all, the logical and militarilysound practice of infantry and cavalry charging in mutual support is not allowed, Geewhiz, Mr. Barker, did you get burned by that tactic toooften and so abolished it? The penalty for even heavies being shieldless is so high that playersare fighting unitssuch as Viking Huscarls not as they were historically equipped, but as Mr. Becker's version of military science dictates. Here we see the true vital issue at stake: history is being distorted and rewritten.
Terrain in the peculiar topographical world of Mr. Barker is overly complicated in terms of its descriptive versatility; and certain areas are given advantages in choosing the terrain; yet the terrain is fairly uniform in what it does to the troops. Cavalry is not slowed in rocky areas, yet infantry is, and as an added bonus you can even charge an enemy you cannot see, as there are no visibility requirements for a charge declaration: "Charges must be against targets currently in reach." (p.25).
The entire fatigue system is flawed. EHI is unfairly penalized when they advance on foot; so Swiss cannot fight with their traditional armor and tactics (if they push back an enemy they can't expand their halbardiers). Regular infantry can never get pumped-up with adrenaline and go impetuous, but cavalry can. Also, the same regular foot will never acquire fatigue from just charging. Models stay almost forever because they aren't removed and can still hurt an enemy's morale. There is a world of difference between the results of a unit being dispersed by fatigue, while pursuing or being pursued; yet the rules treat them in the same manner. The greatest flaw in the fatigue system is the failure of Mr. Barker to realize that the poisons of fatigue and exhaustion are washed away by the greatest elixir of all; advancing over the bodies of your fallen enemies, as you see their other formations in rout and ruin. In war, Mr. Barker, morale must never be sold short.
My evenings are now spend re-basing for the "nth" time as I contemplate trying to stave off defeat at the hands of Indian "Panzer Divisions" equipped with almost indestructible chariots and elephants. These are now so effective that it makes one wonder why they were everabancloned in the first place.
What upset me the most in Mr. Barker's letter was his attack on Kruse Smith. Kruse is a fine, honorable, decent man, and an excellent judge (even if he does makean occasional decision that hurts me). I can assure Mr. Barker that Kruse is a far better judge of what Americans want and don't want in a tournament. They don't want to drive 500 miles and lose because their opponent overruns their camp with elephants during a driving rain storm.
Today, one man, Phil Barker, has far too much influence among ancient players, some of whom sit mesmerized awaiting the next word (Eighth Edition?) of this great guru. These rules are flawed. Can those of you that play them honestly tell me that if they had been written by Danny Weitz instead of Phil Barker you would have accepted them? It's time that American wargamers had the maturity to make their own destiny and choose their own rules.
By the way, Phil, by profession I'm not a "... rules lawyer I do, however, have a Ph.D. in Roman history.
AND AGAIN FROM PHIL BARKER
Over here, I estimate that practically all 15mm players and between 2/3 and 3/4 of 25mm players have converted to 7th. Those that have not are players who have yet to give them a serious trial, and are typically players heavily committed to the British Nationals and unwilling to change until they do. I suspect Daniel has also not given 7th a trial, for if he had, he would find far more important differences to disconcert him than the combat methods! He doesn't even seem to have read them very well, judging from the following examples.
Firstly, nothing in the rules stops crossbowmen shooting overa rank of pavisiers, except that they cannot do it as they charge or counter-charge, and that was so in 6th edition. Byzantine cavalry archers can shoot over a rank of lancers, even if they charge. I can only assume that Daniel believes "contiguous" to mean something else than merely touching.
The practise of charging cavalry and infantry together at the same target IS allowed, but only to mixed bodies of foot and horse, precisely those troops who did it historically. Now that a bound represents 15 minutes instead of 30 seconds, events during a bound that had to be considered simultaneous before may now no longer be regarded as such. In real life, it is conceivable that a determined commander of well-drilled troops could get two different bodies to start a charge simultaneously, but highly unlikely that he could get separate charges by foot and horse to arrive simultaneously without getting in each others' way.
The number of ranks of Frankish figures allowed to fight is immaterial unless it produces an unhistorical range of combat results. Take a look at the last example on p.46 (Germans v Late Romans) and judge if that is so.
The terrain represented in the rules is typical of the areas in which ancient battles were fought. I both walk and ride horses over such terrain quite frequently, and I can assure you that flat rocky areas are more of an obstacle to walkers than riders. Both have to pick their way through, but the latter has a better view and is less tempted to leave what path there is. Don't think of a lunar la ndscape, or ofa rocky desert, but ofjumbled scatters of rock, overgrown and partly concealed by 1-2 foot high bracken fern, heather or spiky gorse bushes which slows men but not horses.
I do not think it unfair to penalise EHI for the extra weight of their armour. Some Byzantine manuals suggest mounting them on mules to prevent fatigue. Swiss are not affected unless upgraded to EHI, a historically doubtful proposition.
So the poisons of fatigue are washed away by the elixir of victory? Never seen the winner of an Olympic foot race collapse on the finish line, or heardofan army unable topresspursuit because of exhaustion?
I don't remember attacking Kruse Smith or impugning his honour or decency. If you press me, I think he tends to shoot from the hip a little at times. A player does not lose a game by having his camp overrun with elephants in a rain storm. He loses because he is an incompetent who has not taken the elementary precautions that an ordinary historical general would have. Four major conventions have now taken place worldwide with the full 7th edition rules including terrain, weather, and special deployments, with no complaints. I have yet to play an American gamer who is a wimp, and refuse to believe that American conventions need a special sanitised kiddie version.
Presumably people buy my rules because after playing with one or more previous editions they believe I do good work, and trust me to have done it again. Even Daniel seems to like 6th. As he would no doubt tell you, the distinction irreverently known as "piled higher and deeper" is earned by presenting a thesis that demonstrates that the applicant's grasp of the small part of his subject covered by it is at leas( equal to that of his examiners, and so by implication, that he is capable ofattempting further research ofequivalent value. it does nor imply expertise on matters he has not researchedin such detail. Both ofus must bejudgedon what we write, preferablyin my case by playing a game or two with the rules!
PETER HOFSCHROER DISLIKES REVIEW
Peter Hofschroer, author of six books and numerous articles on the Prussian Army of the Napoleonic Wars is partial to the Prussians. This amazing revelation comes on page 36 of The Courier Vol. VII, No. 3. The genius that came to that astounding conclusion was none other than Jim Arnold. Nobody in the wargaming world had realised that before. My carefully guarded secret is now public.
Sorry about the sarcasm. I am afraid I was not very impressed by Jim Arnold's review of my latest Men-at Arms Book, "Prussian Cavalry l2)". Mr. Arnold's comments are not only factually incorrect in places but also a little unfair. Although I am not in the habit of commenting on reviews of my works and take criticism as an occupational hazard, I do feel that the record needs seeing straight here.
Firstly, I would disagree with Mr. Arnold that there is a "pervasive bias" in this book. it is a quite open bias which I have never attempted to deny. I am of Prussian origin and proud of it. Having said that, anybody that cares to read any of my works on the subject will see that I can be very critical of the Prussian Army and I am in the book in question. Mr. Arnold makes great play of my use of the word "flee" to describe Davout's actions when charged by over 1,000 Prussian horsemen. In such circumstances, "flee" is a quite natural action I would think. I find it laughable for anybody to see this as an example of "pervasive bias", unless, of course, you think that to suggest that French marshals react as mere mortals is biased. I await with great trepidation Mr. Arnold's review of my biographyof the ElderKellerman in "Napoleon's Marshals". I seem to recall suggesting that he too was a mere mortal. (ED. NOTE: Jim Arnold is the author of the biography of Marshal Victor in the same book.)
My next gripe is that Mr. Arnold complains about "the lack of attention focused on the Lanchvehr, Volunteer and Freikorps". I would respectfully suggest that Mr. Arnold read the cover of this book. The title is"Prussian Cavalry ofthe Napoleonic Wars". Because it is on thePrussian Cavalry, then these other formations are not covered. Later on this year, another Men-at-Arms written by you know whowill be published. Its title will be something like "Prussian Reserves, Freikorps and Militia". Guess what that is about.
The first sentence of the third paragraph had me in fits of laughter. Mr. Arnold complains that "the text is disappointing, particularly after the very informative first volume". Perhaps, as author of both volumes, I should let Mr. Arnold into a little secret. I wrote the text of both volumes in one go, and then divided the text by date. Both volumes are, in fact, one manuscript.
Mr. Arnold then complains about my "shallow biography" of Blucher. in "six" pages (actually four pages of text), it would be difficult to do anything other than write a "shallow" biography. However, that is not really Mr. Arnold's complaint. He "would much rather have read about cavalrycombats or tactics in a book entitled'Prussian Cavalry'." If he cares to read pages 11 to 19 of this book, then he will find that those subjects are dealt with. I am beginning to wonder if Mr. Arnold actually has the same book in front of him as I do. In all of mayserieson thePrussian Army of the Napoleonic Wars, I have written a short, sorry, "shallow" biography of various Prussian military commanders. As wargamers read my books and like to have "personality" figures, I have made it a point to give a little information on the subject which I hope may be of use. The reason that there was no such biography in "Cavalry(1)" is, as mentioned above, because the two cavalry volumes were written as one manuscript. The biography of Bluecher is in fact two volumes worth.
As for Mr. Arnold's comments on my account of "a major cavalry battle that took place the day before the Battle of Liepzig" (acutally, it was called "Lieberwolkwitz', but then that is a little difficult to spell), I simply must correct his errors of fact. True, some of the French cavalry perished in Russia, but Milhaud's Spanish Divisions had not. Moreover, the Guard was also well mounted and the Genclarmerie brought their on horses with them. The remainder of the French cavalry were mounted on poor horses taken from the same devastated part of Central Europe that the Prussians got theirs from. The Prussians performed better tactically on the same terrain and same horses as the French. That is an indisputable fact. Mr. Arnold's point is simply invalid. I hope that Mr. Arnold has read my fuller account of Lieberwolkwitz which was serialised in "Miniature Wargames". I suggest Mr. Arnold refer to page 41 of issue no. 42 of that magazine where I state:
"Much is said of the poor quality of the French cavalry at this time and that could be offered as the reason for their defeat. However, despite a lack of training and unsuitable mounts, the French cavalry was capable of mounting several attacks, rallying and persuing and keeping a formed reserve, which must indicate a certain level of tactical ability and training. Moreover, the French cavalry shone when it engaged in skirmishing. Only experienced troops make good skirmishers, so it is the view of the author of this series of articles that many historians tend to underrate the French cavalry of1813. It came close on a number of occasions to beating the Allied cavalry and it was only Murat's poor tactical deployment which deprived them of victory."
No doubt Mr. Arnold would dismiss the above as being "biased", but then you cannot please everybody all of the time.
JIM ARNOLD REPLIES
I try to evaluate a product from the consumer's standpoint. I strive to be fair to the author, but ifl feel a product is flawed, I feel I should take note. My very mild criticism of Mr. Hoischroer's book stimulated him to write a rather personal attack upon me. I can only assume that he intended to engage in gentlemanly dispute, so I will deal with the substance, rather than the tone, of his letter.
In my review, I wrote that the French 1813 cavalry "consisted ofpoorly trained recruits mounted on even poorer horse flesh". Mr. Hofschroer counters in his letterthat "True, some ofthe French cavalryperished in Russia, but... " ' The November 12, 1812, returns for the French cavalry for thos corps marching with the main French force show the number of surviving cavalry: 1,800 in the IId; 400 in the IIId and Vth; 1,200 in the IX; 50 in the IV Cavalry Corps. The 21 January, 1813 returns after the French detached and depot forces had rejoined - show the 1st provisional cavalry regiment comprised manpower from four shattered dragoons regiments (DR): 2d DR, 154; 5th DR, 78; 12th DR, 128; 15th DR, 106. The 2d provisional regiment: 14th DR, 62; 17th DR, 92; 19th DR, 98; 20th DR, 139. The 3d provisional regiment had 96 men from the 3d, 6th, and 11th Cuirassiers; 197 men from seven different chasseurs a cheval regiments, and 112 men from three different dragoon regiments. Even by April, 1813, with the Emperor furiously straining every nerve to raise a mounted arm, regiments in the IId Cavalry Corps show the following strengths: 1st Carabinier, 91; 2d Carabinier, 105; 1st Cuirassier, 241; 5th Cuirassier, 99; 9th Cuirassier, 103; 10th Cuirassier, 129.
Clearly, manpower losses among the cavalry during the Russian campaign had been horrific. George Nalziger, a meticulous student of orders of battle, estimates a mere 2,000 dismounted cavalrymen made it out of Russia. Losses in horseflesh were equally severe if not worse. The French writer Labaume says some 176,000 horses of all types went into Russia and that Russian sources note burning over 123,000 dead French horses. Given that the Russians would neither have encountered nor burned all the fallen French horses - recall for instance, that horse meat provided the major foodsource for the French soldiers during the retreat - this figure hints at the staggering horse loss.
I don't think these factors support Mr. Hofschroer's characterizations of French losses and I stand by my original statement.
Mr. Hofschroer correctly notes the presence of Spanish veterans and Guard Cavalry at the battle in question, Lieberwolkwitz (yes, I can spell it Peter, but in my short review I wasn't sure the general reader would recognize the name so write "the battle the day before Leipzig"). Like the other French cavalry, the Guards had suffered terribly in Russia. During the 7813 refit they received the best manpower and equipment and so were the best French cavalry. While not up to previous standards, they probably were better than anything the Allies had. It is interesting that many authors, Mr. Hotschroer included, write about the Spanish Dragoon Division as standing out as elite troops. They were veterans of years of campaigning in the Peninsula, hardened to war and familiar with regimental tactics. But throughout the glory days of the Empire and in Spain, the dragoons had never been anything special. Suddenly, in 1813, they are hot stuff. The explanation is simple and supports my earlier point: when the best are gone and are replaced by raw recruits, surviving average troops rise in relative status.
Mr. Horschroer makes the interesting statement, regarding the opponent's relative horseflesh, that the Prussians had to draw upon the same depleted stocks as the French, This statement has merit. Historically, the better French horses came from East Prussia and, to a lesser extent, from the Rhenish princes. Presumably they drew down the East Prussian horse supply before the 1812 invasion and so the Prussians had to rely upon leftovers in 1813. However, I would still maintain that the French had a more difficult situation since they could no longerget any horses from East Prussia. A cuirassier recalls that his unit rode horses who in formerrimes wouldhave been used as cart horses. They could barely work up a trot during a charge, tired easily, ate too much, and died in droves from the campaign's rigors. Overall, because of Europe's continual warfare, I think it is accurate to say every 1813 contestant (excepting the British) was mounted on shockingly inferior horses compared to earlier years.
Regarding the riders, Prussia was able to run many of its cavalrymen through the Krumpersystem training cycles while the French had to begin 1813 with complete riding novices. By fall of 1813, the time of the Leipzig campaign, French riders had probably mastered basic equestrian skills and so the gap between the rivals'abilities had probably narrowed. Nonetheless, French diaries recount mounted charges in column, an exceedingly poor cavalry tactic necessitatedby the trooper's poor riding and resultant inability to perform tactical changes of formation on the battlefield.
I have tried to use the balance of my letter to discuss the potentially most informative aspects of Mr. Hofschroer's letter. I will only briefly address his other points. The term "Prussian Cavalry" does not by definition exclude the reserves, freikorps, and landwehr. Mr. Hofschroer chose to exclude them from his book andwe, the consumers, suffer. I'm glad the author will address these most interesting topics in his future work and hope he rebounds to his previous standard.
Mr. Hofschroer openly acknowledges his bias. All I did in my review was make note of this. I do feel that historical writers should try to compensate for their biases rather than openly celebrate them.
I applaud the author's efforts to inform his wargaming public about the lives of prominent Prussians. I stand by my comment that Blucher's exploits are well documented in virtually every publication that even remotely deals with the Prussians. Therefore, I would hope writers such as Mr. Hofschroer would tell us something we don't already know.
Finally, I wrote that Mr. Hofschroer's second book did not measure up to his earlier effort. The author dismisses my criticism by noting the second book is actually the second half of one manuscript. While this practice may benefit the author and publisher, as a reviewer I try to examine theproductasa consumer. I think the consumer expects foreceivea self-contained book when he makes his purchase. If a book is not intended as such, but rather is supposed to be purchased in conjunction with another work, I think this fact should be made explicit. To be fair, perhaps a parenthetical -2- in the second book's title was a sufficient warning (I'd rather see a short note written on the inside cover or in an introduction telling me I am about to buy half a book), and if so I simply missed it.
SOME ADDITIONAL TERRAIN IDEAS
Having only been involved in miniature gaming for two years now (coming from 25 years of boardgaming), I've been rather shy about expressing my views of "The Great Terrain Debate" that's been raging in THE COURIER for the last year or so. I've been playing "Johnny Reb" for this whole time and have spent a lot of time working on terrain - or at least thinking about it.
Anyhow, Neal Neamand's article on Trees and Forests in VII-2 prompted me to offer my "solution" to the forest problem.
What I do is glue a 2" roofing nail onto a penny, paint the nail, glue on a sprig of lichen, then flock the base. This gives a reasonable tree that looks very good on the table. Finally, trees that "stand up"! This method is cheap, quick (100 trees in 2 hours), and works very nicely with 15mm.
I do a number of other things to improve the table look as well. I've had the "Johnny Reb" tables enlarged on a copying machine and hang them on the wall. With letters about 2" tall, it is easily readable by most people from up to 15 feet away.
My roads are 1" wide brown felt strips with rounded ends, with "wagon and horse" tracks painted on in darker brown paint.
My fences are 6" sections of "converted" toothpicks mounted on flocked pennies. Using flats for the boards and "rounds" for the posts they look fine once washed.
ED NOTE: A photo accompanying the letter but too dark to print showed a very nice table layout. Tom shows what a little thought and imagination can do to really "pretty up" our games.
PICTURES ARE NOT ALL
Keep up the good work with the magazine. I appreciate the thorough and scholarly treatment which many subjects receive in your magazine, and am always impressed and pleased to find good bibliographies included. Your main English competition offers very pretty pictures, but if l want to find out about an interesting historical topic, I turn to THE COURIER.
Many thanks - "A picture is worth 1000 words"... but the words take less translating. - R. BRYANT
Back to Table of Contents -- Courier Vol. VII #5
To Courier List of Issues
To MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 1987 by The Courier Publishing Company.
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