The introduction of the Internet has added another wonderful aspect to our hobby. The use of the various chat sites or discussion lists have enabled more people and more information to be exchanged than through the historical mediums of clubs, paper periodicals (magazines, newsletters and journals) and conventions. Some of the threads generated by the contributors can become quite intense as each person presents his or her argument on the selected topic.

If you need to find information, there are usually volunteers willing to give a varying amount of data. Some keep their remarks limited to a few lines, while others elaborate and provide references. This is an advantage when looking for opinions on which figures, paints, rules, books or whatever to buy and getting historical information.

It can also be frustrating as contributors debate the merits of the information provided. All of us have a new forum in which to express our opinions. There are fewer constraints, as the controller of the site can not always screen what is written. Sometimes, it can be a bit tedious reading through all the repeated material to find the additional comments. Other times the information may be of no interest. Nonetheless, it has enabled information to be exchanged relatively quickly. In particular, the use of new information and sources has expanded.

In the past, there was a tendency for gamers to access only old research and books written by other gamers who are using old research. The newer material in the historical journals and books was harder to find, track down and digest unless one had access to good libraries. The locating and research aspects are only of interest to some gamers, although many more can benefit from whatever is uncovered. The e-mail communities have helped and this will improve if we can get more research material on them. It would help if this information were put into terms easily understood by gamers. I am not suggesting that gamers are uneducated. Often, the trouble is the academics are so used to writing for other demanding and critical academics that they are not writing for a general audience. And yet, they present some worthwhile data that gamers can use.

How many of us are comfortable with other languages, particularly Greek and Latin. While most modern historians limit their use of other languages, it is nice to have translations of some of the original quotes when wading through academic prose.

This is particularly true of our periods of history for which information can be both limited and/or hard to find. We also benefit when foreign gamers provide material from non-English sources. There are many good sources that have yet to be translated (and may never be translated). Gamers, who are comfortable with translating or at least providing a synopsis, expose us to this information that may of particular interest when researching army lists, rules, colour selection for painting figures and tabletop tactics.

Even when there is lots of information on a subject, a certain amount of caution is warranted before applying it. It is not as if we have sufficient evidence, despite all the research, to make many confident statements. The information has come to us from sources that need to be considered before rating them as adequate. Sometimes, it is a case of the same information being used repeatedly by historians such that it is now considered fact, despite having originated from a single source. For example, several Byzantine military treatises from the 6th to 11th Centuries contain material copied from earlier works. While plagiarism may be the sincerest form of flattery, such repetition tends to obscure the distinctions between the various Byzantine military organizations (Maurikian/Heraclian, Thematic and Nikephorian armies). There are indications that differences existed but some of the best written sources do not make them obvious. Objectivity and subjectivity are two words to consider when reading history.

Anyone who has written an academic paper, particularly on an uninteresting subject, may have resorted to using any source that would provide information to get the task finished. There may not have been too much concern about the quality of the information, just that it was useful. This could also be applied to the professional writer, who relies on acceptable sources to support the writer's interpretation of events.

Many researchers undertake their studies without having experience with all of the subject matter. For example, one could write about weapons and armour without knowing how they are constructed and how they were used. Others possess this knowledge such as re-enactors, weapons smiths and military personnel.

Recently, in the pages of Slingshot, there was discussion about the meaning of certain Greek words. This was considered important by those discussing the subject because the correct definitions would then determine how to identify the equipment of certain troops. One has a better understanding of the nuances of language in this particular case, if aware of the significant changes in Greek since the original text was written. This is not always apparent when reading translations or material extracted from another language via other sources.

One of the best series of translated works, the Greek and Roman publications of Loeb, has such problems. The translation of Ammianus Marcellinus uses generic terms for many Latin military words that we understand. Catafractarii and clibanarii are translated as the same thing, although these two words have been the source of debate amongst gamers for decades.

It is easy to assume that a contemporary source had a better understanding of events than a more modern writer does. It may also be erroneous because the source lived many years after the events and we do not know what sources were used to compile his or her work. Even someone writing shortly after an event took place could be basing this on dubious reports. Anyone knowledgeable about recording eyewitness accounts can attest to the variations in reports of the same event. An eyewitness, such as Ammianus Marcellinus, can decorate with some flowery prose (the blinding reflection from their burnished armour).

In the Strategikon of Maurikius, the author describes three organizations of Byzantine cavalry units. These have been considered as former, current and proposed systems. There is little historical evidence to confirm that Maurikius imposed the last organization on the Byzantine army, although most army lists follow this system. Other military treatises and related books were written for the enlightenment of the public rather than as guides for the military. They do not always provide a realistic view of the contemporary military forces, although they may have been useful to laymen, who were ignorant of the military.

Some texts that survived the ravages of time were penned by philosophers, who may or may not have had military experience. Philosophers of ancient times wrote on a variety of subjects, many of which would not be considered philosophical topics in our era. The writer's motivation has to be questioned at times if they are pandering to an audience or trying to embellish the facts. It is also difficult for one person to have a good appreciation of events. This is the argument used by the Duke of Wellington when declining to contribute to a history of the Battle of Waterloo.

The writer's motivation can be as varied as that of the modern gamer, who will apply supportive facts to an argument. We do not always use all of the available information and prefer to highlight anything that is supportive. A gamer, who has a winning killer army based around a particular interpretation, is likely to argue very forcefully for that interpretation to be accepted to the exclusion of any other possibility. If we are aware of this happening, then we can consider earlier presentations of facts in the same light.

We do benefit from the input from re-enactors, who provide some insight into the practical experiences of their activities. This is a relatively recent addition, as practical experimentation by academics tends to be limited. There are the examples of the Greek trireme project, the Roman studies of Dr Junkelman of Germany, the studies of Roman cavalry by Ann Hyland and Peter Connelly in England, and several recreated urban settlements depicting life in ancient times.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with the theory that history repeats itself, there are many parallels that can be used to compare what happened at other times and places. Comparison provides another way to consider what may have happened as opposed to what was recorded. This is apparent in development of military tactics, strategy and doctrine.

Certain treatises are timeless because much of their content is still applicable. Sun T'su, Vegetius, and von Clausewitz are among some of the better known writers, whose works remain in use. One could compare the success and failure of Hellenistic pike-armed phalanxes with those of the Renaissance. In both periods, there were common aspects. Some came about because of trail and error, and others were inspired by history. The Renaissance armies could be modelled on the information contained in the ancient writings of Aelian, Asclepiodotus, Vegetius and others. Many historians and military forces place emphasise on "lessons learned". This is one reason that many militaries are accused of being ready to fight the last war rather than a future war.

There is still much to learn about the events of our period. We are now able to tap into new sources thanks to the Internet. I hope that gamers will contribute so that untapped sources can be made available to more of the community. This will help in the developing of the rules and army lists (and other aspects).

Hopefully, we will not go to a convention and argue with some "dork" about vague historical details of which we have absolutely NO conclusive evidence, but he wants to argue the point anyway. Instead, we can refer that unenlightened gamer to information that provides a better understanding of the way things were/are.

Not all of us have the time or inclination to pursue this type of knowledge. The Internet has given us a way to ask for it or provide it. I hope that more people will exploit this wonderful addition to our hobby and make it interesting to others.