Being an infrequently written and still temporarily named column (until I think of something better) on topics related -- some however indirectly -- to the hobby of wargaming.
In Chapter 6 of his book Carnage and Culture: Landmark Battles in the Rise of Western Power, Professor Victor Davis Hanson recounts and examines the campaign waged by the Spanish Conquistadors against the Aztec Empire in the early 16th century. I had occasion to recall this narrative at Little Wars 2003, on the Saturday of the three-day convention, as I was treated to the spectacle of Duke Seifried's Azteca.
"Spectacle" and "spectacular" seem completely appropriate words when trying to describe the wargaming wizardy of Uncle Duke. In a past issue of WARGAMES Illustrated, there was a center-spread of this same wargame, or at least photographic set up of the models. I wonder how many wargamers were moved by these pictures to begin researching this period; to begin to consider building their own collections of Spaniards and Indians? More than a dozen players crowded the well illuminated table on which the fate of an empire hung in the balance. As if the photos in the Brit glossy were not amazing enough - the full scale model of Uncle Duke's reconstruction left me open-mouthed and in near revenant awe.
Professor Hanson succeeded in maintaining my interest, in a period in which I have never really had much interest, by the color and detail of his analysis. It was a completely appropriate "end" to the reading to be able to see a three-dimensional representation of the odds that the Conquistadors faced, and the technology or "might" with which the Aztecs had to contend.
Tenochtitian is but one of nine battles/campaigns considered by Professor Hanson in his well-researched, well-argued and completely readable work. The demonstration/display game put on by Duke Seifried was but one of dozens of wargames observed during Little Wars 2003, the annual miniature gaming convention sponsored by HMGS Midwest.
For the past three years, it's been my practice to write a brief article or review of my experience(s) at Little Wars for readers of MWAN. It's a "task" that I more or less fell into; it was not something specifically requested of me. In some respects, I guess it could be argued that this practice is kind of like my interest or attraction to the hobby of miniature wargaming: I more or less fell into it. Perhaps it is better to state, "I more or less graduated to it." As most readers know, I've long had an interest (passion) for history, and specifically military history. The hobby of wargaming - of recreating battles in miniature - then, seemed a very natural progression.
This year, instead of a "standard" review (though some may consider the second part of this present effort as just that), I should like to take a page or perhaps more, to remark upon an issue which appeared in MWAN Issue 120 and was subsequently addressed in Issue 121 with an article as well as through a number of letters by readers. Let me stipulate to the tardiness of the following comments and remarks. It is not my intention to - as the saying goes - "beat a dead horse." It is however, my intention- as another saying goes - to "add my two cents worth."
Mr. Sam A. Mustafa's piece, "The Games We Play (and how people see them)," and the ignited editorial by Hal gave me some pause for thought. I could identify with both, but just barely, as I can only count two times that I've been "questioned" about my hobby pursuit. In the first instance, I let a college girl friend know about my interest in military history and in playing games with toy soldiers. As I recall, she developed a kind of blank stare. In the second case, I related my interest in the hobby to a long-standing pen pal, and she responded with an "Oh, please" followed shortly by an insulting comment with regards to an offensive bumper sticker. Enough said.
I can more identify with Mr. Mustafa and Hal on the points of how to "work" my hobby interest into everyday conversation: during a dinner with coworkers; on the 7th fairway; on a Sunday drive; or after a 10K race while munching on a banana and a bagel. To the consternation of some wargamers I'm sure, I don't really do much to "promote" the hobby. If the crowds at Little Wars 2003 are any indication, the hobby seems to be doing very well without my taking out an advert in a local paper, submitting a sidebar to Newsweek or perhaps People and going on WGN 720AM (a radio station in Chicago with a huge audience). It seems to me that this hobby, like many others, is a very personal pursuit/endeavor. Reference was made to the magnificence of the game put on by Duke Seifried. I have no interest in the period or era. If asked to choose between participating in Azteca and a "nice" Napoleonic battle, I would have to choose the French versus almost everyone else in early 19th century Europe.
In the issue following Mr. Mustafa's narrative, Charles Elsden III and several readers responded to the subject matter and questions thereby raised. More often than not, I found myself in agreement with the gentlemen. The letters from Bruce Meyer and Jim Getz being especially on point. In the period of time spanning these two issues of MWAN (November 2002 to February 2003), I was fortunate enough to happen upon a variety of other periodicals which contained related articles. In as much as the following may be considered my "two cents worth," here goes.
In the February 2003 issue of Utne, Lawrence LeShan suggests that war is popular because it "at least promises to fulfill some fundamental human need or tension." He goes on to explain: "One central human tension is the problem of how to be both an individual and a part of the large group." ("WHY WE LOVE WAR AND WHAT CAN WE DO TO PREVENT IT ANYWAY," page 54) He continues, providing a brief overview of the two means that can serve to satisfy this conflicting drive or tension and concludes that, historically, war has been the more immediate resolution. (55) He quotes from Tolstoy in order to reinforce his point: "Every general and every soldier was conscious of his own insignificance, aware of being but a drop in that ocean of men, and yet at the same time was conscious of his strength as a part of that enormous whole." (No page reference to War & Peace given.) Professor LeShan then summarizes:
- .. descriptions of war by experienced participants and by great artists
demonstrate that it fulfills these fundamental needs. War sharpens experience, heightens perceptions, and makes once more and more aware of one's own existence. At the same time, war allows us to become part of something larger and more intense." (55)
Is it such a stretch then, to suggest that this same idea may apply to historical miniature garners? That is to remark, if the above is amended by inserting "wargame" or "wargaming" for "war," then the meaning is not significantly changed. It seems to me that this revision would echo the sentiments expressed by Mr. Elsden. The same general thought occured while reading another article in another periodical.
In the December 9, 2002 issue of The New Yorker magazine, I happened across a very interesting (and visually disconcerting) essay by Susan Sontag. She begins "LOOKING AT WAR: Photography's view of devastation and death" with an examination of Virginia Woolfs 1938 book, Three Guineas. The basis of the book is a question posed to Woolf by a London lawyer via correspondence. The question? "How in your opinion are we to prevent war?" The response? Let me quote Sontag at length:
- Woolf begins by observing tartly that a truthful dialogue between them may not be possible. For though they belong to the same class, "the educated class," a vast gulf separates them: the lawyer is a man and she is a woman. Men make war. Men (most men) like war, or at least they find "some glory, some necessity, some satisfaction in fighting" that women (most women) do not seek or find. (82)
The essay goes on at quite some length and Sontag does an excellent job (I think) of reviewing the history of photography in relationship to warfare and how the images of that warfare affect and impact us. It is not my intention to dissect her essay any further, nor was it my intention to take the aforementioned out of context. I think there is a lot of truth to what she writes in those five lines. I thought it an interesting coincidence that this essay should come out just after Issue 120 of MWAN was placed in my mailbox. To continue, then.
Having served in uniform, I can readily identify with the latter portion of this excerpted material. My reservation is with the assessment that men (most men) like war. A former student of the M-16A1 Assault Rifle, the M203 Grenade Launcher, 50caliber machine gun and wearer of MOPP gear, I cannot even begin to imagine liking the experience of being on the receiving end of any of those weapons, or of the kind of attack that makes the MOPP gear necessary. Reading "REMEMBER THE GULF: Scenes from the last war with Iraq," by Anthony Swofford in the December 2002 issue of Harper's magazine and the obituary for Michael Kelly in the April 14 issue of The New Yorker - specifically the excerpted material about the 'highway to hell' - only serve to reinforce an impregnable position.
I did find some personal glory however, and a little satisfaction in the maneuvers (war games) that were conducted during my basic and advanced training, as well as over weekend drills and annual training. The Soviets were still the main threat while I was in (although crumbling from the inside), so this answers the question of necessity. Recent history (The First Gulf War, The Attacks on the WTC and Pentagon) provides, perhaps, a more clear indication of the necessity.
If the latter half of this same excerpt is modified slightly, it could read: "Men (most men) like wargaming, or at least they find "some glory, some necessity, some satisfaction in recreating battles in miniature" that women (most women) do not seek or find. A comparison of attendance figures by gender at Little Wars 2003 would prove this beyond question. Even a record of gender attendance at the regular second Saturday of the month club meetings would prove the point.
Wargaming is a hobby that is overwhelmingly male.
Having pursued the hobby for some 20 years now, I can also readily identify with the modified sentence. I do like wargaming. If I did not, I would not be typing this very article, and I would not be thinking about the best way to approach my next wargame. (Something Napoleonic, I think ...) "Glory" is a bit of a strong word, but I would imagine that the winner of a WRG 7th Edition Tournament or of a painting competition might feel something akin to this emotion. At the risk of being redundant, my passion for history - military history especially - finds an excellent outlet or form of expression through wargaming.
Logically, it seems that one may well advance that proposition that if one "loves" history, then one must also "love" war. In one sense, and a narrowed one at that, history is but the record of wars, conquests and battles.
With the exception of those two "limited" experiences previously described wherein my interest in the hobby was "attacked," I have never had to present a serious defense of what I do with my spare time. The saying goes like this: "Water seeks its own level." I an fortunate in that I have been asked to write about my hobby experiences. I have written an article or two for other publications, but my main responsibility is to the editor/publisher and readers of MWAN. I don't write for the Ladies Home Journal, High Times or even Chicago Magazine. I am pretty confident that those audiences would not "understand," "appreciate," have an "interest" in, or even perhaps "argue source material" with me about the contest for Placenoit on the afternoon of June 18, 1815. In that same context, I can hardly expect those readers to "care" about what I did and saw at Little Wars 2003.
With respect to Mr. Mustafa's question on whether we wargamers are viewed in a sinister or more sinister light, I wonder what degree of difference there is between those who play with toy soldiers and "fight" battles in miniature and those who read about war? In thinking about this question and the issue of how we are or might be perceived by an assuming or perhaps "uneducated" public, I skimmed through the introduction to The Face of Battle, that classic and ground-breaking work by John Keegan. I also looked back through the opening pages of Hanson's equally powerful work. Though my well-worn copy of Keegan's text does not state so, this was a best selling book. I am sure it's been reprinted more than several times. Hanson's book has "national bestseller" across the top of the front cover of the paperback print I have.
How many books need to be sold to make a bestseller? One-hundred thousand? Three-hundred thousand? If someone reads such a text, does it really mean that they are a warmonger, oblivious to the pain and suffering, damage and general chaos we have inflicted on one another throughout the centuries?
If one reads the Stephen King book, Carrie, does it really mean that they want to ruin their highschool prom? Or does it mean, could it mean, that they simply like his writing style, or even that particular kind of fiction?
I have, perhaps, rambled on quite enough here and do want to get to the "review" of Little Wars 2003, so in summary, let me state the following:
I am a runner. I have been running races for about six years now. I wasn't always a runner, but I have gradually developed a real passion for the sport. At the risk of making a terrible pun, one could suggest that this discovery was made by putting one foot in front of the other. What does any of that have to do with wargaming and how others may view the hobby?!
Only this: I run because I enjoy running. I "fight" battles in miniature, read about military history and sometimes, try to think about what it must have been like on the field of Cannae, because I enjoy "fighting" those battles, reading that history and thinking about Cannae. It's just that simple. And it's just that complicated.
Battle of the Bulge in Miniature
His cold and hungry men surrounded by German troops and armor, Brigadier General McAuliffe, commander of American units in Bastogne, uttered the immediately famous one word reply to the demand for surrender: "Nuts."
Though I was playing the role of the commander of the 6th Panzer Army in George Knapp's Battle of the Bulge game and was not faced with any such demand, I uttered "nuts" often enough, as my die rolling left quite a bit to be desired. Fortunately, the American commander/player on that same edge of the board rolled even worse than I did. At one point, he "succeeded" in rolling 21 dice without scoring a single hit against my advancing tanks and infantry! Even with that kind of luck, he still managed to hamstring my attempts to break out; at one point late in the battle, tying up no less than three SS Panzer Divisions. Fortunately too, my cocommanders to the south fared better. They also rolled the dice better. (A change from red six-sided dice to white six-sided dice helped me a little but in the end, I "blamed" the part of the gaming table over which I exercised command.) At the end of game turn 10, even with a last minute surge of American reinforcements which succeeded in cutting off some of my over-extended units, the Germans (with a last name like mine, how could I choose any other side?) managed to wrestle a tactical victory from the Allies.
As he did with previous games (Lexington & Concord, Bunker Hill) at Little Wars Conventions, Mr. Knapp provided an excellent blend of simplicity, realism and fun with Battle of the Bulge. Like his previous games, this effort used a terrain cloth as its foundation. Terrain (the road networks, especially) was drawn in; model houses served to represent the villages and towns of the Belgium countryside. Trees dotted the rest of the map-scape. In comparison to some of the other set-ups at the convention, well, there really is not comparison. But, it must be remarked that terrain is not the key aspect to the games put on by George. Others would probably remark that figures are not especially important either. Though this game was set about 200 years after his previous demonstrations, the models of tanks, artillery and infantry were sufficient for the purpose of the wargame.
Deployed on thick square bases, each model or group of infantry was identified by a large, easy-to-read label. This label indicated the unit designation and combat power (number of dice that could be rolled in the combat phase). Losses were recorded by the placement of a casualty ring on a sawed-off golf tee, placed base down on the unit stand and painted brown; a kind of tree shattered by artillery fire. As George related during the course of the Saturday afternoon event, this method of representation allows the playing of four smaller scenarios of the Battle of the Bulge. It's just a matter of swapping the ID tags on the unit stands and, I believe, laying out a new terrain sheet.
As the program described, the games run by Mr. Knapp are simple (he took about 10 minutes to explain the rules at the start and then let the players run the show - no rulers, no charts, no spotting rules, no modifiers) but not simple-minded. However, stupidity is not rewarded, as I regrettably found out when the aforementioned American reinforcements "broke through" and occupied areas I failed to secure.
As if rolling bad dice were not enough!
In the wargame attended Friday night - the Waterloo "sideshow" of Placenoit - I rolled the dice pretty well. During the course of this four hour struggle between Prussian Landwehr and French Line, I managed to produce two heros in units that had taken casualties from fire and or melee. Both the judge (J. Decker) and his assistant remarked that this frequency was unheard of in their games, as well as remarkable for Prussian Landwehr. The dice were on the German side in this game, as my co-commanders rolled well for leadership ratings and in general, for combat. Even so, it was a "near run thing" in and around the cemetery of the Church at Placenoit. Finally, four Prussian battalions were able to expel the remaining Frenchmen from their sanctuary.
In contrast to the Bulge game on Saturday afternoon, this Napoleonic contest had charts, measuring devices, range sticks, order dice, status dice and casualty disks. The last being a casualty figure placed over a status wheel, so that the condition of the unit could be visually noted. A nice change from the placement of casualty rings or caps, I thought. There was also a large display board, which all players could refer to for basic game mechanics: move sequence; order description; leadership rating; formations and the benefits/penalties of same.
Overall, the game was well run and the rules were the obvious result of many hours of research and more hours of play testing. However, if I can be permitted a comparison of the two games in which I "fought," my vote would have to be cast for Bastogne. The Napoleonic game did have better figures. The terrain did not consist of drop-cloth, the odd house and tree, either. What is the deciding factor or variable? Well, put simply, it is that very subjective and personal variable of "fun." Some readers may misconstrue the previous as an "attack" on Cold Steel & Canister'. I apologize for their misunderstanding. I signed up for this event as it has been a while since I've gamed in the Napoleonic Period.
I have also been thinking about re-fighting this battle and thought it might be a good idea to see how someone else approached it. Finally, having used and liked SHAKO as well as PIQUET, Les Grognards - I am still looking for a better set of Napoleonic rules. As this search, very much like my choice of one wargame over the other, is based on personal preference, I may resort to drafting a set of home rules. (And by drafting, I mean "borrowing" heavily from established sets as well as using the odd idea or historical evidence from any number of texts on the period.) The Prussian effort in Placenoit impressed upon me the importance of having rules to cover "exhaustion" and enforced withdraw and reorganization after a number of periods or turns of combat, much like that advocated by the late, great Charles Grant.
In retrospect, I was rather tired from Friday's effort. One might rightly suggest that there is not a lot of effort nor a lot of calories expended while standing around a wargame table. Then again, there is an argument to be made for the physical and mental requirements that include: standing for an extended period of time; trying to absorb a new rules system and concepts; trying to keep one's attention focused on the game at hand instead of those taking place at the next table, or three tables over; and, figuring just how much money one can spend in the vendor area without racking up more credit card debt. Then again, the stress of a five day work week crammed into four days and positively awful weather on the long drive up to Lincolnshire, probably are simpler reasons for the sense of fatigue.
Having rested and breakfasted at my leisure, I returned to the fray early the next afternoon. The weather was still unseasonably cold, but at least the rain had stopped and the sun made an appearance. It seemed to me then, on re-entering the exhibition hall, that the "atmosphere" was more "charged," more "positive" for lack of a better word. I arrived a little early so that I could take another walk or two around the vendor booths and another walk or three through the tables of on-going and in-the-process-of-setting-up games.
My eye, and rest of my person, was caught by the fantastic fantasy display and demo game of Helm's Deep. This event, sponsored by Games Workshop, was straight out of The Two Towers movie. Aragom, men and the Elves defended a magnificently modeled Helm's Deep while Orcs and Uru-Khai massed on the dark plain. It was very much like the film version too, for at times during The Battle of the Bulge game, we were "interrupted" and slightly amused by the volume of this particular fight. The kids commanding Gandalf and the Riders of Rohan seemed to get a kick out of it all, however.
The terrain used at games this year was, in a word, outstanding. While the Helm's Deep set up was impressive, I dare suggest that the wargame table that looked like a still frame photo from the last 30 minutes of SAVING PRIVATE RYAN merits a prize or ribbon. Close second place finishers would go (in my assessment) to Uncle Duke for the Spanish Conquistador v. Aztec game and the reconstruction of the Yankee advance on San Juan Hill. Both tables were marked by outposts of additional lighting, the odd national flag or two, and in the case of the San Juan game, opposing commanders wearing pith helmets (some with feathers) and US Cavalry hats.
As mentioned at the outset of this column, the presentation by Uncle Duke was really impressive. I had seen a spread of pictures of this scenario in a previous issue of WARGAMES Illustrated, and was left almost dumb-founded. To see the whole game, complete with canoes, village, monuments, chests of gold and hundreds of very nicely painted figures was, I will say again, really impressive. And, as mentioned previously, Victor Davis Hanson analyzes Tenochtitlan in Chapter 6 of his fascinating book, Carnage and Culture: Landmark Battles in the Rise of Western Power. He paints a rather detailed picture of the fighting, of the intrigue on both sides and of the cultures behind each fighting force. Even so, it was impressive (I know, that's the third time I've used the word) to see an interpretation of the battle in three dimensions.
San Juan Hill, put on both Friday and Saturday was inspired - I overheard while watching the battlefield being laid out - by the TBS Superstation movie based on the historical event. With this participation game, Mike Cosentino and John Barsanti matched and surpassed last year's reconstruction of 55 Days at Peking. In addition to excellent terrain - trenches with sandbags, the hacienda on the gently sloping hill, the water tower - and wonderfully animated figures, Mssrs. Cosentino and Barsanti used small plastic toolkit cases with clearly labeled attacker and defender dice. This, I thought was simple and effective: it saved chasing dice all over the table; eliminated the knocking over figures with dice; and, the sometimes too often result of having to reroll a die that was leaning against a piece of terrain or stand of figures. I saw this approach used at a few other tables, each table that less "messy" with scattered piles of red, blue or yellow and white six-sided, eight-sided or 12-sided dice.
After almost losing the northern flank of The Battle of the Bulge, I took another walk around the gaming tables. There were ACW games, AWI games, games from a number of Colonial Periods, games catering to the naval enthusiast, as well as a fair number of WWII games. Here again, terrain was well done and varied. I was witness to one wargame where, similar to Mr. Knapp's approach, the base terrain had been marked off in squares. I was also witness to, and I think this is the first time I've seen one used in the playing of a wargame, a WWII battle wherein the umpire had a lap top computer! It makes one wonder if, in three years or so, will we all have lap tops or palm pilots at the table edge? Will we be able to view on the micro screen what our general could see in "real life?" Will we be able to program orders into these devices and hit the return key, thereby sending the courier off to get lost, to get wounded, or simply to his destination and have the orders ignored by some obstinate sub-general? Something to think about, I suppose.
Taking a hard look at the ECW and the Warhammer Rules for this same period is something else that I will probably consider over the summer months. For, at another table, well it was more like six put together lengthwise, there was a magnificent display of 25mm-plus figures arrayed in regiments of foot and horse as well as several emplaced guns. It was, in my estimation, a visual display equal to the best WAR GAMES Illustrated could offer. I dare suggest that the Perry twins would have approved.
The Warhammer Rules were available at several vendor tables. However, they remained unpurchased. Unlike last year's convention, when I went with the secondary purpose of securing the WWII rules Battlefront, I had no other motive this year than to play a couple of games, look through and buy some back issues of the Brit glossies and just "take in" the hobby. Much to the relief of my wallet, the only issue of WARGAMES Illustrated that could be found was the current (April 2003) issue.
If the reader will allow me to use the analogy: I arrived on the "field" of Little Wars 2003 late Friday. Though some "fighting" did take place, the main "engagement" was joined on Saturday. (Readers may well scoff or 'tsk tsk' my participation in just George Knapp's board game with miniatures as tell-tale sign of a "casual" wargamer.) On Sunday then, it remained only to "clean up" after the battle. A fair number of the "combatants" had already departed. And yet, as much as fantasy captured my attention on Saturday, I was quite amazed at the discovery of a nearly life-size science-fiction contest being run in a far comer of the hall.
There was no table for this wargame. There were no battalions, squadrons nor batteries. But there were a number of what I can only call GI Joe-sized figures dressed as the Space Marines from the movie, Aliens. A larger number of Alien creatures (as foreboding in "model" as they were on the theater screen) waited in the wings. It looked like someone had taken a bag or two of the plastic Easter eggs - the kind that can be filled with candy and coins - and had painted them a "sick" color, as if to suggest the contents were anything but sweet. For effect as well, a number of colonists were stuck (literally) to the walls of the blocks that defined the gaming area or arena. For those readers who have seen this film, no more detail is necessary. Instead of the rookie 2nd Lt. leading from the safety of his futuristic APC, Ripley was there in all her glory - and her machinery - strapped into the cargo mover. During the 30-plus minutes I stood on the sidelines and watched the fast and furious action, one Marine went down, attacked by a "face sucker," while two more were flanked and pretty much filleted by Alien attacks.
While I would call myself a "historical gamer" in the sense that my main interests are Napoleonics, American Civil War, English Civil War, Ancients and AWI, to name but five, I found myself drawn to this reconstruction in very large scale miniature. (Please note that I avoided the terrible pun of stating that this game passed the acid test.) As I reflect on this now and review the snapshots taken, I wonder if at another convention, someone might offer a 15mm or 25mm version of STARSHIP TROOPERS? Being somewhat "out of the loop," I wonder if someone already has? That morning, I marveled at the fact that this kind of game (I wonder, can this small unit action / role-playing game could really be called a wargame?) was being played in one corner and over in another section, George Knapp was leading two very young (I think they were a brother and sister team) and one middle-aged captain in a game called "PIRATES!" This looked to be a variation on his simple but not simple-minded rules system, with treasure hunting as important as broadsides, boarding parties and "walking the plank." I felt sorry for the one young captain, as her dice rolling was about as poor as mine had been the day before. It turns out that she was "commanding" from the same edge of the gaming table and using the same colored dice!
Little Wars 2003 is now history. This convention marked my fourth consecutive year attending. And while I would be very hard pressed to recall the wargame(s) played at the 2000 or 2001 events, I can state with certainty that I have always come away with an idea or two. I have also always come away with less money! (This year being the exception, as was noted.) At the very least, I have departed from the convention hall with reinforcement for a current gaming practice or procedure. My attendance at this annual event has also provided me with material for more than a few submissions to MWAN.
Four years ago, if someone told me that I would be asked to become a contributor to an international newsletter catering to wargamers, I would have looked at them "differently." Four years ago, if someone told me that I would have a number of articles published in this same newsletter, well ... I imagine that I would have crossed to the other side of the street and looked back every few minutes to make sure this same person was not following me.
I think perhaps now, if I am approached by someone with "news" about my hobby interest, I will sit down and have a cup of coffee with them.
And I will pick up the check.
Back to MWAN # 124 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