From Phil Barker

Dear Terry ,

I'm not entirely sure what Paul Szuscikiewicz is an about, but I will attempt to explain further.

Howard Whitehouse discarded the definitions of Saxons and Vikings in my DBA ists in favour of his own and publicised the latter in your magazine. Since I have a high regard for his work, I paid him the complement of explaining how I arrived at my classification. I do not see this as bullying, and I doubt if Harold does either. Since DBM required a more detailed approach than DBA, I additionally commented on this to shed extra light an my thinking.

As it happens, Vikings are a particular interest of mine, and so by extension are their Saxon opponents. I am familiar with the archeology, I've read the sagas, I've read the exiguous contemporary accounts of their battles, and I have both read the battle reconstructions of Byrne in accordance with his theory of inherent military probability and walked those battle sites that he identified. I have even talked to re-enactors, and Paul is forgetting that at Knuston in November he heard one such luminary of the Dark Age Society agreeing with the reconstruction in my letter.

I have also been influenced by historical novelists such as Alfred Duggan and Frans Bengtsson, who were also familiar with the sources and used their imagination to fill the gaps in the web of history and produce a coherent overall picture. This lost is a process that rule writers have to go through. The known facts are not complete even with an army so well known as that of at century AD Imperial Rome. They need to be supported by reasoned conjecture.

All that can legitimately be demanded is that the simulation be consistent with all the evidence. When new evidence emerges, then the simulation should be hanged. Academic historians work to different standards, though in practise any of them indulge in quite wild flights of fancy. They can leave gaps that a rules writer cannot. A quoted weapon factor of "?" (question mark) would cause comment!

My argument remains that Vikings and Saxons were for from economically and culturally identical and that therefore they should not automatically be treated regarded as militarily identical. Paul's appears to be that all peoples should be regarded as identical unless they produce a contemporary written statement to the contrary. As for his challenge, do readers of SAGA think my generalization can balance accords with their view of probable human behaviour or violates It? What does Harold think of it?

On the subject of evidence, like most people, many of my opinions derive too the gestalt of the totality of my experience and reading over 50 years, which sometimes makes it hard to quote sources. What I despise as laziness is using a footnote (as "See McPlonk p.33") as a substitute for restating both sides of an argument, giving a resume of the evidence for both views and then giving your own conclusion. It leads to the belief that a fact is something that too been published before, rather then something that can be shown to be or is widely recognised as probably true.

DBM is finalized except for two extra diagrams to explain spontaneous advances a bit better. It goes to the printer at the end of this weak. It now has 36 pages including 7 of diagrams, a full index and probably 1 blank.

Paul Georgian seemed to think that SA were a positive rather then negative feature and gave your Normans and other irregular riff raff too much of an adventage. Actually, untiI we caught it recently, he couId have put a castle in the middle of the table and every Norman knight would have had to charge it mounted! I hope there are no more time bombs like that.

I just finished a series of tests that illustrate the misconceptions that can occur through just reading off factors instead of playing games. I was looking at the Agincourt situation, with dismounted French knights as Blades (S) with a CF of 5 attacking a mix of the same with longbows with CF 2. The mix won every time, although half its elements needed a dice score 3 higher just to break even. The 2 bounds of not very effective shooting to be endured before contact were enough to provide the push backs needed to break up formations and give overlaps.

From Perry Gray

Dear Terry

I am sending the latest contribution to SAGA and it is longer than usual. I hope that you can fit it into the journal somehow. I do not usually get engrossed in the pros and cons of the hobby as I do not have lots of details filed away in the grey matter for easy recall during heated debate over various topics, In this case, I made an exception as I did enjoy the book on Tamerlane and thought that this would be equally revealing. I am prepared to defend my position (circle the wagons, stand by to repel boarders et al) and also accept comments.

The interest in the book stems from correspondence with a friend, Simon MacDowall who wrote the Marathon To Manzikert rules and many articles for SLINGSHOT (Ian Greenwood was his friend), and he was planning a similar project for Osprey. He is currently negotiating another deal. Anyway, he had asked me to check various places in Europe for material on the subject and I eagerly explored the museum in Mainz which has one of the best collections that I have seen on the Roman period (I mentioned this in the column during the summer) to begin a background check. Between the two of us, as we are professional analysts in that the government pays us to do the work, there was a hit of experience in this line of research. He has done two tours in Germany with a third one possible next year and my time over the past months have been used to visit some of the places recorded in Romano-Byzantine sources. Simon also did a book on the late Romans in the Argus "Wargaming In History" series as advertised in PRACTICAL WARGAMER, I spent half an hour at the Arch of Constantine trying to get some good video footage of all the figures just to show friends what it really looks like. I tried to do the same for Trajan's Column but its spiral design was too difficult for my abilities to film properly. So these are our credentials (as well as my collection of books and the collection of a friend in Ontario who kindly lent some to me).

I mentioned in my last letter that I am going to Turkey in January. One of the aims of the trip is to visit Istanbul and see the walls and museums housing the artifacts of this era. I shall some of my experiences in the next column. The point is that we were both displeased with the book and as wargamers were looking for something better. I know that you have also done some reading on the subject as I have a copy of your Huns booklet and also used your Later Roman army so I am interested in your feelings.

In one of my last contributions to SLINGSHOT (I did not renew as I did not like its content in 1991, so I am interested in your thoughts on this as well), I criticised the editor for expecting too much professionalism from a group of amateurs.

Almost the reverse could be said of Dr Nicholle's efforts in that he was paid to write this book and it lacks professionalism. I compare his work to that of Jeff Shanton or Mike Pavkovic who have produced detailed reports on the armies for NASAMW. Granted Mike did his academic studies on the Romans but I enjoyed listening to his presentation at Historicon several years ago,

He presented himself as well read and had references to defend his arguments. The same can be said for some of the contributors to SLINGSHOT as I mentioned in the column and all of this material is submitted without payment because these people are interested in sharing and learning.

I do not fault anyone for making money but I expect the finished product to be better than that of an amateur. I have not come across any material as detailed as that written by David Sweet on the Ethiopian army and I would consider him to be an authority, as someone who knows him, is this a fair assessment? David produced articles that I would pay to read in an Osprey format.

Well time to step off the soapbox again. I hope that 1993 is a good year for you and the family. I look forward to seeing you upon my return in the spring, Let me know how things are going with NASAMW as well.

From Gareth Simon

Dear Terry,

SAGA arrived last Saturday, just as I was heading off to visit Steve Neat for the weekend, so he's pocketed it before I could read it. I'll get it back this Saturday at the SoA committee meeting. It looked good from my brief acquaintance with it.

You will find a copy of CHVs Field of Battle. It is still in deirelopment, and I'll be taking it along to play after the SoA meeting. Paul S-Z has found us a meeting room in a pub just above Picadilly Circus -- The Old Coffee House and after the meeting is over we sit around,and socialize.

The rule set is only a draft, so please don't let it circulate outside your immediate circle. When it is ready to roll Charles is quite happy for you to distribute it over there.

When (or if) you try it, remember that it is supposed to be a battle module for use in campaigns and is not a stand alone system -- though it is great fun as a stand alone, especially for participation games at conventions. Those of the SoA committee have played it have said it is much better than DBA, as have the casual players at shows. I think this, is due to its period specific nature, and the grid system which suppresses some of the silly actions you find in DBA games.

Marshal's Warfare in the Latin East will be going on pilgrimage to Rochester NY in a week or so's time. I have almost finished reading it, and Charles had a 'speed read' of it last week. He doesn't agree with the author's conclusions, but likes his evidence and respects his arguments.