Of course, I doubt that we could get a real consensus on an objective definition of "historical gaming". I mean, ancients players seem unbothered by battles between Aztecs and Romans, for instance, while I think a World War 2 gamer wouldn't have much interest in a battle between Patton's Third Army and Napoleon's Old Guard. In my own mind, I see "historical gaming" as being composed of several subsets -- and the common thread that binds them is that each features to some degree historical armies, weapons, tactics, etc.
Here are my own ad hoc categories, which can be arranged more or less along a continuum:
1. "Pure historical" -- Only battles that actually occurred are played. A mostly theoretical category in my experience.
2. "Mostly historical" -- Includes hypothetical battles, but only between opponents who plausibly could have fought and during actual wars. Typical of more conservative historical wargamers IMHO.
3. "Sorta historical" -- Like #2, except the main requirement is that the armies be historical, without regard to whether they could actually have fought. Most ancients fall into this category.
4. "Alternate historical" -- Like #2, except that certain significant changes in history are postulated. Examples would include French vs. Americans in Mexico in 1865, NATO vs. Warsaw Pact, etc. Note that this can actually be more plausible and "historical" than #3 above. NATO/Warsaw Pact is far more plausible than Romans vs Aztecs. I'd include in this the peculiar modern genre of "hypothetical" -- wars that *could* happen, but haven't happened yet.
5. "Fantasy historical" -- This category features ahistorical components like alien invasions during WWII, fantasy races re-fighting the Napoleonic Wars, my own Orc's Drift (Colonial Brits vs fantasy natives in the Centre of the Earth), Space: 1889, etc. This would also include the Victorian Sci-Fi genre. Obviously, this category can significantly overlap "fantasy" and "sci-fi" gaming.
Then there's the "Mythical Continent historical" category. This is where actual armies (or analogues) are placed in fictional settings to allow for more variety. Examples are your Mafrica, and my Europa http://www.tyler.net/tbeard/Index01.htm . It can encompass #3, #4 and #5 categories.
I think that a majority of people who self-identify as historical wargamers" would agree that categories 1 & 2 are "historical". A majority of ancient gamers apparently feel that #3 is "historical" and as a modern wargamer, I think that #4 is historical (much of modern wargaming is hypothetical/alternate history).
Category #5 is the real rub for some. Since I play fantasy and sci-fi as well as historical, I don't spend a lot of time worrying about it. If forced to decide, I'd argue that #5 should be included, since it *does* have a very significant historical component. My colonial Brits are still organized and painted appropriately for the period, regardless of whether they fight Zulus or Orcs. As a sop to those who want purity in historical gaming, I'd concede that these games are "less" historical than (say) a refight of Waterloo.
The "Mythical Continent Games" should be considered historical IMHO, since (a) they have a long history in our hobby and (b) they are often no more improbable than anything in categories 3 or 4.
We have a local gamer who is trying out some rules by fighting battles between the British and Ruritanian army around the turn of the century. (1900, not 2000) Its all a lot of fun, but is it history?
Well, to some extent it is, and to some extent it isn't.
But one could make the same argument to some extent about *any* game that (a) portrays a battle that did not actually happen; or (b) that has a different outcome than a historical battle. Thus, it appears to me that "historicalness" is a continuum, rather than a simple binary test.
Thus, I think that the best response would be that it is "less historical than a refight of Gettysburg, but more historical than a refight of the Battle of Five Armies."
Does it matter whether it's history, as long as it's fun?
It must matter to someone, because they asked the question. But the subjective truth is that I really don't care about the abstract question of historical vs. ahistorical. I care much more about fun vs. no-fun.
Honestly, I doubt whether any game played with toy soldiers (toy boats, toy airplanes, etc.) can be 'historical' in any meaningful sense. No matter how realistically we sculpt and paint the toys, they're still toys. It is our own suspension of disbelief that allows us to feel something of the thrill and pageantry of war when we play our games, without any of the inconvenient carnage, squalor, misery and pain.
Now the odd thing is that, even though I don't care about the abstract question, I find that playing at historical game subjects is usually more fun for me than ahistorical subjects. I'm not sure that I can accurately analyze my own motives, but this may be because real history has more texture and depth than most fiction.
The fiction writer sketches only as much of his fantasy, or science-fiction, or alternate-historical world as his story requires. He doesn't define the uniform of every military unit, a full system of rank insignia, a full, working economy, the forms of worship and festivals of every god and goddess in his pantheon. The world he creates is shallow, only a facade. And the human story he tells is too often likewise false and vapid. There aren't many really good writers of fiction, in my opinion, and damn few of them are writing backstory for wargames.
Real history is fully developed. All the facts and details are there if we dig far enough to find them. The human story history tells is true, and it resonates with me. Real history is sometimes the story of my own family, or of the particular place where I live. This tends to be what interests me the most, and thrills me the most when I play at it.
But there can be exceptions. JRR Tolkien developed Middle Earth so extensively, and I've read so much of his fiction, that it's almost real to me, and I have fun playing at it. No other fantasy milieu compares. The imagery in the trailer I saw for the upcoming movie "Sky Captain" is so powerful that I'll probably have fun playing at that. So I'm not a historical bigot, I'll accept exceptions when I find them.
But generally, playing at history is what's fun for me.
Back to Table of Contents -- Game! # 3
To Game! List of Issues
To MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 2004 by George Phillies.
This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web.
Other articles from military history and related magazines are available at http://www.magweb.com