Well it seems that I have stirred up a hornet's nest as a result of my "Comments on Non-Specialists Firing Guns," in issue #25. I had not been aware of the depth of the controversy on this particular subject. Unfortunately, it seems that my little essay has been misconstrued by Mr. Lochet and undoubtably others. I hope that this article may serve to clear up misunderstandings. The purpose of my original article was to point out some problems incurred in permitting the firing of guns by non-specialists in wargaming. It was not by any imagination intended to be a schoiarly work on the historical question as to whether certain troops were trained to fire guns at specific times in particular armies. I do not deny that in very rare cases, guns were fired by nonspecialists. I do not deny that a considerable number of units received at one time or another some artillery training. It is regrettable that prior to firing his blistering volley at my essay, Mr. Lochet did not reread the first three paragraphs more carefully. It states quite clearly that my purpose was to show some of the reasons behind the decision not to allow non-specialists to fire artillery as a general rule in the rulebook EN AVANT!, and why the NJAW ought to reconsider their decision to allow this in their rules system. I have to admit that my motivation resulted from the unpleasant e watching guns remanned by British Line Infantry after I had laboriously eliminated the crews, the silencing of enemy artillery really being a turning point in a battle. The ease in which this was permitted by the rules was disturbing. Upon going home, I read through a copy of E.E.&L. # 20 which had just been given me by Tom DeVoe and decided to submit an extemporaneous essay to indicate where my thoughts lay on this subject. I did not realize that my essay would be so sadly misinterpreted by those unable to recognize the difference between an essay of this type and a more serious effort. Let me repeat some of the points which should be taken into careful consideration whenever any sort of rule is considered. I hope that by presenting them in a list there will be less latitude for misunderstanding. Problem 1: Contradictory Data It is not uncommon when reading history to discover that two accounts of a particular event by respected historians do-not agree. Unavailability of source material; political,nationalistic emotional, or other sympathies; research time constraints; limitations; different perspectives; all contribute to different historical viewpoints and accounts of events. The result is that given more than one account of an event, where contradictions occur, and given credible historical credentials, most readers will believe what is most agreeable to his preconceive, beliefs. Problem 2: Misinterpretation of Data In my essay, I repeated a quote from Mr. Lochet's article in issue #20 taken from BRITISH ARTILLERY ON LAND AND SEA, in order to demonstrate how the possibility of misinterpretation of the same data is possible by two different readers. *The original quotation was intended to, demonstrate that the British Army during the early part of the 19th Century continued to train both infantry and cavalry to fire guns. I maintained (and still do in this case) that the use of the phrase "were to be trained," indicates that although such training was the intent of the Horse Guards, it was not carried out. Problem 3: Wargamer Abuse To me, this is the most important point of all. In fact, it was the real underlying reason for the essay. Mr. Lochet accused me of possessing and using 20th Century logic. 'I must plead guilty. But likewise the people playing wargames are also guilty. Therefore I believe that rules should be formulated to combat this. Some units could fire artillery. But this does not mean that this happens except very rarely. Wargamers, possessing nearly two centuries of hindsight and more education than 99- of the people of the era, make such an event commonplace.- Once the decision is made to permit certain troops a specific ability, this ability is sure to be used whenever possible. Please allow me to quote myself: For a rule means just that, that this is the norm, not the exception. A player would have to be a fool not to make use of this capability whenever available. It then becomes standard proceedure to see infantrymen peeled off of their battalions to man guns. The advantage is to obvious to ignore. Rules should represent the norm, not happenstance. Some rules systems have the underlying theory that they should simply present all of the factors and all of the abilities of troops in that particular era. The player then has a free hand in doing what he wishes from then on. This theory is probably supported by the majority of wargamers. Within some eras, I support it also. Applied to Napoleonics, however, I do not favor the idea. The result of this theory in action is an interesting game which does not reflect the real "flavor" of the time. I think that the rules system should put constraints upon the players to prevent them from 20th Century behavior. Just because troops could do certain things did not mean that it would be done. If the event only occurred very rarely, this alone justifies a rule to assure that it would only very rarely occur in a game, under specific circumstances. Comments by Jean A. Lochet I must admit. I am puzzled. Mr. Schneider in the above article says: "I did not realize that my essay would be so sadly misinterpreted by those unable to recognize the difference between an essay of this type and a more serious effort." In his previous article published in issue # 25, Mr. Schneider said that he would like to take issue on my article. I could not dissociate the strong conclusion from the all article. I am going to quote it: "As a last word, if so many units were capable of firing cannon, why did they not do so all the time? Surely their commanders were not that stupid to ignore such great advantage? No, they would not. This omission indicates that men could not fire artillery. It should not be permitted in wargaming." I could not dissociate the fact that:"The subject was studied and vigorously debated for a considerable period before the decision was finally made to prohibit this characteristic." I could not dissociate either the quotation about Charles Francois and the Grenadiers of the Imperial Guard being unable to fire cannons.... Still today I don't see the difference. Well as long as we have cleared our misunderstanding. Well not quite. I did not accuse Mr, Schneider to have a 20th century mind all by himself ...I also included myself. I said: "...Our 20th.century minds...". No doubt I plead guilty on that one. Back to Empire, Eagles, & Lions Table of Contents Vol. 1 No. 27 Back to EEL List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1978 by Jean Lochet This article appears in MagWeb.com (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other articles from military history and related magazines are available at http://www.magweb.com