You know, normally I prefer to argue historical facts or wargame logic in public, and leave disputes over wargame image and ethics to private correspondence, but Hal and Sam have raised some points publicly, and they should be answered in public. If I may summarize the articles, Sam pointed out that many of the wars were scarcely fair fights, and lead to catastrophic ends (Tariq) and that in addition to this often the history portrayed was too recent and nerves too raw (Ursula). Hal and Sam both suggested that perhaps the hobby would be better off keeping a low profile to avoid such objections. Obviously neither Hal nor Sam, both of whom I've met and admire, think that historical miniatures wargaming is immoral, or they wouldn't do it, but they are concerned about how their hobby appears to others. In the order raised, then:
Tariq might have noticed that the most common colonial games are the most balanced. It's not Ashante but Zulu who are available from huge number of vendors. The convention staple is not Germans tracking down Herero, but the legations at Peking clinging by their fingernails. Does anyone think TSATF is biased against the native powers? News to me.
Fair? Good question. There's an old Robert B. Parker "Spenser" novel in which our hero describes getting badly beaten in the ring by a superior boxer. "Was it a fair fight?" a kid asks. "No." Spenser replies "In a fair fight, I'd have had a baseball bat." Other than actual error in design, I don't think I've ever seen a wargame where one didn't have at least a chance in three of winning. So complex is the typical wargame that it's hard to judge better than that without going to identical armies and mirror image terrain. One in three is a great deal better than my odds ever were in baseball, and far better than one of the worst mornings of my life--wind sprints at the end of a PT formation. Is basketball a fair game? Ask a dwarf. And when our games are hopeless, we can quit or withdraw. Ever watch a basketball team being outscored two to one still have to come out for the fourth quarter? That's cruelty.
Do terrible things happen in war, or as a result of war? Darn right. So too with elections, law enforcement and courts, none of which has put a stop to student government, playing cops and robbers, and mock trials. Is Ursula right and the events too recent and nerves too raw? I'm not sure how far back you'd have to go. I met a Confederate reenactor in a bookstore last week. He had very definite ideas about William Techumseh Sherman and war criminality which I feel quite sure greatgrandfather Ernst (musician, 71st Indiana Volunteers) would not have shared. He was also inclined to think Nathan Bedford Forrest was maligned.
Talk to an Irishman about warfare in the British Isles in the 1640's and see how dead the past is. ("And when will ANYONE make 15mm figures for 1798 Ireland?", he cries!) As for contemporary and future war, rest assured that the uniformed services are wargaming that even as I write. And from 25 years in uniform I can assure you that most of them are tilting the game and outright cheating in a fashion that wouldn't be tolerated at Lancaster. No Sam, I don't think you're being too hard-hearted about the whole thing. Or if you are, we all are. Anyone playing a subs vs destroyers game, after all, is trying to do in my cousin who skippered a U-boat for Kaiser Bill. (One of them must have gotten him, too. At least we never heard from the German branch of the family after the war.)
Still, should anyone whose family experienced financial hardship not play Monopoly? Apart from the demands of common courtesy, trying not to offend anyone is a mug's game. Some people are offended that I eat meat, others that I wear clothes. Still others (who've seen me) would be offended if I went naked. If it offends YOU, don't do it. About keeping a low profile: How shall I put this? No. This is a free country. You should only keep a low profile of activities you're ashamed of. If you're ashamed of what you're doing, you should stop. We are not celebrating death. There are no wargames of executions or massacres. We are enjoying a stimulating and sometimes beautiful hobby, and celebrating intellectual skill, training, courage and discipline. There are hedonists out there, people with no respect for human freedom, and racist bigots. THEY should keep a low profile. We should seek publicity. To "keep a low profile" is to deny some other person the pleasures we all enjoy.
Truth is, we need publicity because we need recruits. I can remember when there were exactly four 30mm wargame figure makers in the world, and uniform info could be hard to come by even for the Napoleonic Wars. Today, some of the most obscure armies of history are available at under $30 for a hundred, and uniform info costs under $20 an army. This is because there are thousands of us providing efficiencies of scale. At hundreds of us, we'd be back to a half-dozen mostly amateur manufacturers. At dozens of us, we'd be home casting and converting plastics again. If there were ten times as many of us, we could buy castings off the racks in hobby stores, and have conventions in our own towns instead of driving a day each way. Don't believe me? Take a good look at the fantasy and SF gamers.
So much for the case against. What about the case FOR wargaming? The short answer is that anything that gives so much pleasure and injures no one needs no further justification. As opposed to generals, diplomats, politicians and economists, WE hurt no one while pursuing our activities. But it's more than just the absence of harm.
For me and for most of us, historical miniatures wargaming is the most exciting and challenging intellectual activity I can share with friends. It can accommodate the gamer with very little money and not much by way of skills who enjoys rolling dice and gets lucky every now and the, but it can engage the full resources of a man with a lot of money to show off and a keen mind indeed. It's a libertarian hobby in that we each either make up our own rules or agree to the rules being used, with a wide range of rules always available. It can demand careful planning and staff work or be little more than weighted dice rolling. It's often a beautiful hobby, and before you despise this, ask yourself when you last saw a beautiful chessboard. Nor will our best players be superceded by computers in the next generation. John Dickson Carr once referred to murder mysteries as a "most noble activity." Poor fellow. He never had a brigade of 30mm infantry on a stricken field.
Back to MWAN # 122 Table of Contents
Back to MWAN List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Magazine List
© Copyright 2003 Hal Thinglum
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