I noticed that one of PA's contributors sent in a request for suitable boardgames for children to play. This is always a tricky one to get right, but I would suggest a programmed instruction approach, with each game being purchased in sequence as follows (subject to continued availability):
- 1) Risk. A fine (and fun) introduction to the principles of wargaming. Everything is here objectives, concentration of forces, and of course great simplicity.
2) Britannia and/or History of the World. Although the first of these titles is by far the better game, both are tremendous fun and easy to learn.
3) Quebec 1759 and War of 1812. The simplest of Columbia's block games, both products are fun and have great visual appeal.
4) Moving onto hex grids with either Four Battles of the Ancient World or Avalon Hill's Smithsonian games. These tend to be very suitable for beginners, the Smithsonian range in particular having some nice graphics and decent historical background. By the time any putative gamer has got this far, he/she should have a pretty good idea of what to buy in future.
I have also read Robert Drews' fascinating book on warfare at the end of the Bronze Age. I found his central argument very persuasive indeed, and his scholarship commands a great deal of respect. I would however query some of his details. I would for instance question whether or not infantry was quite so poor as he states prior to the arrival of the usurpers. Drews claims that the depiction of Egyptians in serried ranks illustrates that they had poor morale whereas the usurping mercenaries were depicted as fighting in looser formation, thereby demonstrating superior fighting skills. This does not really follow it simply indicates different formations. Drews supports his contention on the uselessness of Bronze Age infantry before the Sherden et al by pointing out that artwork of the period concentrates on chariots. He concludes that chariotry was therefore the decisive weapon, with infantry being mere spectators.
At first glance this view has much to recommend it. However, it can be argued that chariotry is depicted in artwork owing to its status rather than simply its effectiveness in battle. One can postulate a different model of battles in the period with reference to the ECW type model of infantry in the centre with chariotry and light infantry support on the wings the victor on the flanks being able to crush the PBI by turning on their side or rear.
As for chariots themselves, was it really the case that the Hittite models were only depicted as lacking bows because Egyptian artists did not like to show their enemy possessing their own most prestigious weapon. Might we not posit the alternative that since the Hittite empire was fairly large, it is indeed conceivable that some of its chariots were armed with bows (probably from that part of Palestine which had most contact with the Egyptians) but that chariotry from the Hittite heartlands was of bulkier construction, with its crew being armed with long spears? Indeed, one can argue that the later heavy Assyrian chariots might have developed their design philosophy from earlier encounters with Hittite and neo-Hittite "battlewagon" types of chariot.
Nevertheless. Drews's argument that the usurpers were able to win primacy in the Near East thanks to their possessing quality infantry in much larger numbers than their opponents, is very convincing. His book is well worth reading, and I would encourage all PA readers to get hold of a copy.
More Neil Thomas
Back to Perfidious Albion #100 Table of Contents
Back to Perfidious Albion List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 2000 by Charles and Teresa Vasey.
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