One of the problems with all WRG sets of rules is that they are technologically focussed. In issue #5 of Kriegspieler Richard Sisson's article on Renaissance wargaming posed the question: "Is a (DBR) competition dominated by mid to late 17th century armies with a majority of musket-armed shot really Renaissance wargaming or just conveniently described that way?" A possible solution he proposes is to subdivide the period into basically 16th century and 17th century wargames. The issue is greater than just subdividing the period into two halves if you are really interested in historical gaming. After all - isn't pitting a French army of the Italian wars against say William III's allied army from the Nine Years War sheer fantasy? One of the key problems with all WRG sets of rules is that they are technologically focussed. Their Ancient set of rules (DBM) span from the dawn of time to 1500AD because, according to WRG, technology remained relatively constant over some four and a half millennia. Also, I suspect because information on many periods and armies is scant, it becomes easy to generalise. With DBR they have gone in for a shorter period (1494 to 1700), roughly commensurate with the time when pike and shot infantry formations dominated most western European battlefields. Of more recent times some wargamers and WRG in particular, have incorrectly referred to this period as the "Renaissance". It quite clearly is not. We should be referring to it as either "Pike & Shot" wargaming, as wargamers have in the past and many still do, or as the "Early Modern" era, as most historians do. In DBR troops are supposedly defined by their "battlefield function" and not by their weapons, however, this comment does not stand up to scrutiny. For example, missile troops are not one category, they are divided into bows vs shot. They are then further categorised into "superior", "ordinary" and "inferior" depending on the perceived technological capabilities of their weapon. It is more important what sort of musket your troops are armed with than their level of proficiency in its use. This view of warfare misses the point that how troops fight and their probable success is generally more dependent on their training, leadership and morale than the weapons they carry. This sort of approach leads to removing the subtle differences between troops, their usage and idiosyncrasies – there is no bitter rivalry with no quarter given when Swiss fight Landsknechts. If we look at the Italian wars, the armies that began it were closer to their medieval ancestors than they would be to the type of armies that ended the Italian wars. And this is only a period of some 36 years. As F. L. Taylor in his excellent study on the Italian wars pointed out; "When, in the autumn of 1494, Charles VIII of France set out for the conquest of Naples he did so in a spirit of adventure, at the head of an army raised for the occasion, and with the declared desire to proceed ultimately to the Holy Land. When in 1529, the Treaty of Cambrai brought the Italian wars to a close there had already appeared in Europe such modern phenomena as the principle of the balance of power, trained armies, and competitive armaments." This is the traditional Renaissance era yet using DBR you get no sense of the colour or evolution in armies and warfare of that period. During the Italian wars the predominant troop types and formations were pike blocks supported by groups of shot and/or halberdiers, mounted men-at-arms (gendarmes) and light cavalry. Reiters were only beginning to emerge. Pike blocks fought in deep formations (up to 75 ranks deep), while cavalry fought in shallow formations. Field defences were often employed to protect shooting troops - especially by the side that didn't have Swiss mercenaries. Pikemen and mounted men-at-arms engaging in bloody hand-to-hand combat decided the day. Shot and artillery could be instrumental in winning the battle but only if well protected by field defences, and even here it still relied on an aggressive counter attack by one's pikemen or sword and buckler men or cavalry to win the day. Command was rudimentary and quite often troops acted rashly, ultimately leading to disaster eg. the French at Cerignola and Pavia and the Swiss at Bicocca. Armies were still organised into three "battles". The only lower level unit were "companies". These varied in size and composition depending on the noble or captain who raised them. Ar mies and formations were ad hoc groupings. Most shot were matchlock arquebuses and artillery was ponderous and extremely varied. Reading about 16th century warfare in Western Europe there is a sense of military experimentation, trial and error with new weapons and tactics such as the introduction of firearms, sword & buckler men, stradiots etc. There is a proliferation of thinkers on all aspects of warfare from people like Machiavelli to old soldiers such as Monluc. As the 16th century evolved western armies became characterised by greater similarities in weaponry and tactics. Armies became more reliant on firearms and supporting cannon. Infantry formations became shallower, the exact relationship between pike and shot depending in large part on the size and nature of particular units and the lie of the land. Cavalry became increasingly used on the flanks to guard ones own flanks while trying to turn that of your opponent, so that his infantry could be attacked in the flank or rear. By the time of the Thirty Years War the similarities between European armies was greater than the differences. It is a mistake to assume that while the Dutch and Swedes adopted new tactics, other armies stood still. The universal reliance on mercenaries and the recruitment of prisoners ensured a relative common approach to tactics and organisation. The armies of Maurice of Nassau and Gustavus were in the majority mercenaries. In the first half of the 16th century different tactics and weaponry generally determined the outcome of battles. By the late 16th century winning battles became more dependant on a commanders generalship; the experience and motivation of his troops; their disposition and use of terrain; the availability and employment of reserves. During the second half of the 17th century, armies in Western Europe became standing national establishments with definite bureaucracies for command, recruitment, training and logistics. Troops were organised into battalions, regiments and brigades. Pikemen had disappeared from most armies by the 1690's to be replaced by the bayonet-armed musketeer. Maximum firepower was ensured by linear formations which had become longer and thinner than earlier in the century. Artillery was becoming increasingly standardised and more mobile. These armies and troops are closer to those of Marlborough and Frederick than they are to the armies of the Thirty Years War. If you study a period as opposed to gleaning its history from army lists it readily becomes apparent that there are significant differences between the armies and troops throughout the 16th and 17th centuries. Not only in technological terms but just as importantly with regard to organisation, training, tactics and psychology. There were even greater differences between geographical locations and cultures. The Conquistadors did not conquer Latin and South America because of their weapons superiority rather it was because they exploited cultural and psychological advantages. Using a set of r ules which doesn't allow for the richness and peculiar characteristics of a particular period is about as reflective of that period as playing chess. It provides a competitive game mechanism but not a satisfactory historical simulation. My problem with DBR is that they try to do too much over too great a period encompassing the whole world. I like many of their mechanisms e.g. command control, but find the way they generalise over long periods and ignore issues of training and morale, ultimately leading to a feeling that they have missed the point. In comparison, there are set of rules called Maximilian published by Gladiator Games that came out before DBR but based on many of the DBA/DBM mechanisms. These rules cover roughly 1450 – 1550 in Western Europe and better capture the "feel" of this period. They allow for factors such as faster than normal Swiss pike movement all the way into battle, Swiss/Landsknecht rivalry, Forlorn Hopes and the movement of halberdiers/two-handed swordsmen to the front in a melee and many more variations without making any troop types supermen or overburdening the rules systems. You also get a set of fairly historically balanced army lists with the rules. An interesting difference is that they give players from "major powers" slightly larger armies. Another set worth looking at are the Armati and Advanced Armati rules with their "Early Renaissance", "Later Renaissance", "30 Years War" and "English Civil War" supplements. I like the way the rules encourage players to adopt historical formations. Unit movement is ponderous and command limited – reflecting the period. Again army lists are provided with the rules, however, these army lists are far more prescriptive about the number and type of core troops your army must have to be historical. A new set of rules recently released and specifically aimed at the pike and shot period are Warfare in the Age of Discovery. They are clearly focussed on the main conflicts of the 16th century; the Italian wars; French Wars of Religion etc. There is then "expansion" sets of rules included dealing with 17th century warfare – mainly the Thirty Years War and English Civil War. Again army lists are provided. I've not played them so can't comment on how well they play but they appreciate their history. Lastly, an interesting variation can be found at the Warhammer Ancient Battles site at : http://www.ancientbattles.com/contest/italy1600 This introduces new rules and an army list for the Italian Wars. They provide historical wargamers with a template on how differences between armies can be accommodated within the WAB approach. This list leaves a lot wanting but given the more flexible approach of WAB it provides a template for wargamers with a knowledge of history to reflect their era of warfare better. While I don't like all the dice rolling that goes with WAB they provide for greater flexibility to simulate a given army and period and also they emphasis the psychological factors of warfare better than most other sets. So, coming back to Richard's question; "Is a competition dominated by mid to late 17th century armies with a majority of musket-armed shot really "Renaissance wargaming"? The answer is quite simply NO. Such armies have more in common with their 18th century descendants than they do with the pike and shot armies of the 16th century. The more ar mies are limited to a specific period and conflict the closer players will come to appreciating the military history of that era and producing a meaningful historical simulation. A fact even recognised by WRG as their army lists are divided into period-specific wars. Competitions that match armies from widely differing periods are fantasy – you are not dealing with history - just figures in historical costume being used in a game. Back to Table of Contents -- Kriegspieler #7 To Kriegspieler List of Issues To MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1999 by Kriegspieler Publications. 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