It was with great interest that I read Hal's editorial in MWAN #120 and the replies from numerous friends and acquaintances. At this time in my life, I have few leisure activities that I pursue and enjoy. Of those, hunting upland birds, and wargaming are my passions. Based on the chatter of the politically correct crowd, I would be considered a very dangerous person! Yet both activities, at least to me, seem very normal. Recently in our local newspaper, the sports page ran photos of youth that had shot their first deer. These would be hunters who are 12-14 years old. The outrage by the anti hunter crowd and animal protection advocates has been intense. Every other day, for over two months, there have been letters to the editor criticizing all aspects of hunting. Most deal with the inhumane cruelty to these animals that are harvested for food. No thought is given to how our regular food supply is obtained. I suppose they figure that the cattle, hogs and chickens just show up at the slaughter house and commit suicide! The letters keep going back and forth from each groups supporters. No matter how the pro hunters try to frame the debate, they come across as having trouble justifying their activities. Yet having hunted, I know and feel it is part of the nature of humans to hunt. Most chose not to as grocery stores are very convenient, yet if our food supply would be interrupted or disappear, hunting would become very popular, especially for those who like to eat! Trying to justify wargaming can be just as difficult as the above example, especially when the distracters concentrate on the "war" part of our name. In years past there was some discussions on changing the name of the hobby. If I remember correctly, the talk was of changing the name to "Adventure Gaming," and the hobby then would include both historical miniatures and fantasy gaming. Good for us that this never caught on. I do believe that our hobby name could have been better chosen, especially with the current political climate. People can hear the name "war" and immediately think to the least humane part of a conflict, the loss of innocent lives and the cruelties to none participants. Of course no thought is given to the good that comes of war: the freedom gained, the suffering ended, the hope created. Our hobby concentrates on a different aspect of war. We see the history of the conflict, the courage of the combatants, and the decisiveness of the battles. A better name to describe what we do would certainly be "Battle Gaming." Now I am not suggesting a name change, as when it comes right down to it, I care little what certain groups of people think about me or the hobby that I play at. Sam Mustafa's friend, Tariq, was displeased that wargames would be played in the Colonial Period: "...and I see that there are many games involving the conquest of Africa: killing the Zulus, killing the Sudanese, killing the Tuarega..." "Ah' he smiled and wagged a finger, "but that was hardly a fair game, those wars. We Africans don't think of those as `wars' at all, any more than you would think of September 11th as a `battle." To Tariq's credit, he is the kind of guy who takes time to research things he is interested in. Long hours on the Internet gave him a reasonable idea of what the hobby of wargaming was about. What he did not do was to take part or play in a wargame. What he would of found is that while wargaming is about armies and battles, it does not replicate history. Much as we would like to think that we simulate historical combat, the truth is that our table top battles are only games. If Tariq had played a Colonial game involving Zulus, he would have found that the rules or scenario by design give both sides a fair chance to win. If we were to design rules right out of history, who would want to play? For sure wargamers love the forlorn hope, but they still expect some chance for victory. Take the American Civil War for instance. How many frontal attacks succeeded during the war? Few! All of the great victories for attacking armies came from armies that were able to attack from the flank or rear. Our rules give the attackers a much better chance than the actual combats showed, but this is necessary to keep players interested in playing the game. If the results were completely predictable, based on the tactical situation, then what point and what "fun" would there be in fighting the battle? Ursula, Sam's friend from Germany, saw wargaming past battles of history OK, just so long as nothing recent was gamed. "It's too recent, There are people still alive who remember it. It's disrespectful and childish to `play' at it. As a boy, my brother and I would fight for hours on end, battles with our Marx play sets, including WWII. My farther, who commanded the 1st JUSCO team ( the movie "Windtalkers" is about a JUSCO team) and who made four major landings with the Fourth Marine Division, never objected. After landings at Kwajalein Atol, Saipan, Tinian and Iwo Jima, maybe he saw wargames just for what they are, playing with toy soldiers, nothing more - nothing less. Maybe he saw his boys learning history and took comfort that we would grow up to have a deep respect and fear of war. I am an insurance adjuster by trade and certainly have learned over time that there are two sides to every story or event. Tariq and Ursula see war and consequently our hobby in a sinister light. Some will, no matter what we do, no matter what we say. Never once have I had to defend the hobby as Sam describe. In fact, my experience has been just the opposite. Neighbors have requested local newspapers to do articles on my activities. Another neighbor brought his brother in law, who was interested in Vermont Civil War history, over to see the "layout." Once, we had a new minister over to the house to meet the family. Some how, and I'm not sure how, the minister got into the "war room." Expecting a lecture, I got a "avow, this is great. The whole congregation needs to see this!" Obviously a man who appreciates history, but " no the whole congregation does not need to come over." I almost always have a battle set up on the table, so it is not hard for visitors to visualize what a wargame looks like, and I always emphasize the history behind the battle. Visitors can see that I takes this seriously and comments are always positive. We are a small hobby and will probably get smaller in the years ahead with the Baby Boomers getting older. History is no longer emphasized in our schools. Years ago I recruited to the hobby thinking bigger was better. Now I see it much more as a private affair. Something I do for my own enjoyment. I seldom play games any more, maybe two or three times a year and then they are solo or with a single friend. I have long ago given up on developing the perfect rule set. The rules and the game are imperfect at best. Instead, I tend to concentrate on other aspects of the hobby. I still paint figures, adding brigades to my ACW collection, which is up to 39 different manufactures - Probably a never ending task with new manufactures showing up each year. Still the collection is wargaming history from the beginning to the present. The other day a friend, Mike Walkner, and I did a re-fight of the Union assault on the stonewall at Fredricksburg. Mike, a true historical wargamer, picked the Union, muttering something about changing history. Brigade after brigade, division after division assaulted the wall. History repeated itself as the Confederates held, though it was a much closer affair than the actual battle. Four times , Union regiments crossed the wall only to be thrown back. As we played the game, each brigade to assault the wall was from a different manufacture - All acquired at different times, by different means. All painted by myself over 25 years. Seven divisions attacked, but only a small part of the collection was used. There was nothing sinister about the game, just a neat way to spend a Saturday afternoon with a mutual friend who, like myself, has a deep interest in history. Another favorite area of the hobby is researching the terrain of the battlefields. Trying to build an accurate model of the battlefield is always challenging. Hours pouring over histories and photos can provide a real feeling of accomplishment when complete. My current project is Gettysburg, which I am doing with permanent terrain. I will probably have more time in research than I will have in building the model. Research can be important to the battle or just a small insignificant part of history that interests you. I have been working on the buildings for the Trostle farm. This area was photographed following the battle and showed the battle carnage of the courageous stand made by Captain John Bigelow's 9th Massachusetts battery. In looking at the photographs, you can see a small brick building with no roof at the front of the house and a partially framed building beside the house. This is not clear and no matter how much I enlarged the photo could I tell for sure what they were. I called a friend who has been to Gettysburg 17 times, but he did not know the story. Research on the Internet turned up that in the summer of 1863, Trostle was busy dismantling an earlier log house and constructing a large summer kitchen. Insignificant history, but something that I might or might not add to my battlefield model. I have always seen the hobby as a study of history on a three dimensional level. Certainly our critics can not complain about the study of history. I firmly believe that those who take the time to study history, who have a real feeling for history, can always put current events in a much better prospective. Back to MWAN # 123 Table of Contents Back to MWAN List of Issues Back to MagWeb Magazine List © Copyright 2003 Hal Thinglum 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