Recently I was at a wargame convention and saw something that I had only seen described in wargame magazines. This was a scenario where a gamer that was in charge of a game called aside a participant and lectured him about wargaming etiquette. In all the magazines it is implied that the chastened gamer then apologizes and leads his troops to a splendid victory. However, this was the unfortunately real world and it went differently. The game leader was a man of about five-zero who might best be described as having arms that resembled straws or pencils. The offending party seemed to be a comrade of the Washington Redskins football team in stature. After his lecture he volunteered to smash the nose and other anatomical sites of the leader. With some peer pressure the game leader managed to preserve his life but it was a near thing. Since a British Colonial wargame was being played it was obvious to me that neither party had even the slightest understanding of the 19th century. All colonial gamers would have solved this problem in the True British way. An Irishman, Welshman, African Native, Indian, North African, Scotsman, Canadian and Australian would be given vast quantities of Rum. When they awakened they would receive intensive training in the Military Arts. At the final mustering a regimental title would be preferred such as: Royal Scots Kings Own African Indian Queens Household Irish Sudanese Queensbury Canadian Mounted Police. A bloody battle would ensue where the Catholic Moslem Hindu Kilt dressed troops resplendent in no expense spared headbands and with spears and trade muskets would suffer 70% casualties and invariably win the day. Amidst the post battle carnage such accurate statements as 'a little sticky today' or 'saving those 500 women and children by suicide attack, by yourself, on that entire Rub was a bit of alright." After the general got a medal and the troops a glass of gin the problem was solved. Joking aside, wargaming is a field where bellicosity could prevail. However, it should be strictly confined to historical arguments and debate and should be under no circumstances ever involve personal attacks of any kind. I think it should be understood at all wargame conventions that the importance of history should never be denigrated by true violence either physical or verbal at anytime. After all, the most important thing that we leam from wargaming is that honorable peace is the most important facet in the advancement of the human race. Delbruck This brings me to a controversial figure in historical writing. His name was HANS DELBRUCK. A German at the turn of the century, he wrote a lucid and fascinating history of the art of war. Although certainly not the final arbiter in such a vast field his works bear reading by all serious (and by that I mean those of us who read history for entertainment) historical gamers. I would like to cite some examples of this scientific historian's opinions. In the time of Alexander and even before during classical Greece he feels that the Greek historians were exaggerators to say the least when the Achaemenid Persians invaded Greece it is his opinion they did this as a small army of 'knights' that is aristocratic nobles who fought Spartans and Athenians who usually outnumbered them. This is quite contrary to accounts of Greek historians who felt that a small Persian army would have a million men in the front lines. Delbruck has convinced me that the difficulties of campaigning and logistics speaks for small Persian armies at the time of Alexander. He feels that the Persian Empire had no good troops except for nobles and there was no infantry tradition as they hired Greek hoplites to anchor their mid-battleline. Delbruck feels that Alexander crushed small Persian Cavalry armies with his huge phalanx and copious cavalry. Afterwards he was described as vastly outnumbered and this might be because ancient historians felt that the only way to express quality (well trained Persian Nobles) was to tally quantity (hundreds of thousands of Persian barbarians). I enjoy Caesar's writings immensely. According to him he is always outnumbered. He says that with handweapons he slew 1 million Gauls, captured a million and made peace with a million. According to Delbruck, Gallic armies consisted of small numbers of nobles. At every battle Caesar outnumbered the valiant Celts, who are usually described as 'easy to tire' and 'easily discouraged.' In point of fact, based upon population studies and the fact that many Celts were disenfranchised nonfighting types it is certainly feasible that the ferocious Celts were described as numerous to glorify Caesar. Then we come to the 'Barbarian Hordes' of the 4th and 5th Century A.D. Delbruck feels based on population studies that the Germans, residents of a heavily forested and sparsely populated area were always outnumbered by the Romans. Since they didn't write books their ferocious victories were attributed to vast numbers. In addition he feels that the wedge formation was not wedge shaped but rectangular as it would be absurd to attack in such a way as to be outflanked. Since the bravest warriors were in the van and the Germans were good logical fighters he may well be right. All in all I like Hans Delbruck's writings. They are fascinating, they are well written and they are a basis for great fun arguments and debate with other amateur historians. Any author who in the Preface refers to his readers as 'friends of history' automatically wins my respect and interest. Lest it be thought that my Tactica armies consist of outnumbered Persians, Gauls and Germans - forget it! I like looking at huge amounts of troops on the table. I love reading WRG and Tactica books as well as Newbury or any other book or rulebook I run across. If Don Featherstone said Delbruck was wrong then of course as a good wargamer I would believe him as we all do. But I think our founding father believes in gentlemanly debate about history if only to justify the fact that we really just like looking at little toy soldiers. In conclusion, at the risk of being too serious I think that a wargaming convention is almost a sacred thing. Politeness and tolerance must be mandatory. If anyone can look at miniature soldiers without a good happy feeling then they don't belong there. Wargamers are a special group with ties that cut across all social barriers and united by a rare understanding that nothing is more important than the history of those who preceded us embodied in the books and toys we cherish. Back to MWAN #63 Table of Contents Back to MWAN List of Issues Back to MagWeb Magazine List © Copyright 1993 Hal Thinglum 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