History and Wargaming

[Leman (Andy)]

A little disappointing to see the 5% history in some people's stance on the Ven diagram. I suppose I have always found history fascinating, and when I started wargaming, which was closely related to the history of warfare, there were no Hobbits et al, except in very enjoyable books. However, I keep coming across historical wargame product reviews on YouTube which demonstrate the reviewers extremely sketchy knowledge of historical context and basic facts, and this raises my hackles. If you are going to review an historically based product then surely a modicum of research first rather than just going gung-ho into recording and posting. If it's an historical related product the chances are that some of your viewers will know the historical setting and those who don't would probably like to get the painting details correct. In the past few weeks I have seen a Union infantry painting tutorial with every hat painted blue, just like the kepi.There's speed painting and then there's just plain daft. The most recent one I have seen was a review of the Perry's 28mm plastic 1870 Prussians, which I will use for some close up and personal skirmish gaming. The Wars of German unification are amongst my top five favourite periods to game, so when I saw mistakes and lack of information I felt a wee bit sorry for those interested in but not yet familiar with that period of history. So:
1) The rolled greatcoat, an iconic item on the mid-C19th Prussian soldier, was described as the blanket roll - yes for an ACW infantryman, no for a Prussian.
2) The figures come with four different alternative heads (shades of PP here), i.e. 1860 Pickelhaub, 1867 Pickelhaub, soft Feldmutz and Landwehr Shako. The differences between the two pickelhauben were then very briefly described - the wrong way round!
3) These figures are marketed as Franco-Prussian War 1870, but the reviewer went on to say that they could be used in all the German wars of unification, which is correct, but then failed to make a very important point: if you also want to use them in the Austro-Prussian War 1866 or the Second Schleswig War 1864, DON'T use the 1867 pickelhaub heads, because many German troops continued to wear the 1860 headgear in 1870, but, for obvious Dr. Who reasons, not the other way round. I know this sounds very picky, but it's an important enough distinction that even Pendraken have  Prussian infantry packs in the 1860 and the 1867 pickelhauben in 10mm.

These are just a few examples, but it does seem to be a common practice in YouTube reviews. My suggestion is, if you are not prepared to, or don't have time to carry out some research before posting a review, then just stick to what you do know and concentrate on the quality of the figure such as sculpting, moulding, proportions re. real humans, comparison to other figure manufacturers in that scale, pricing, ease of painting and so on. These are the things gamers want to know about new products on the market rather than misinformation about historical details. However it does demonstrate the importance of historical knowledge to historical wargaming.

[steve_holmes_11]

What's the Venn diagram you refer to at the beginning?

[martin goddard]

I would suggest that reviews should take note of "new information" and be modified accordingly.

We  should however be very wary of saying that there is a qualification for being a reviewer.
No one I know is the top expert on anything.

 
There is always someone out there who knows more.


Maybe someone should be appointed to grant gamers permission to review (me I think).
Then prospective reviewers could apply for permission to do  a review and it could be granted or refused.

Reviews should be able to be challenged and modified.

The best reviews that I have granted permission for are the Plastic Soldier reviews of figure boxes. Always very good. Hence why I have granted them the permission to carry out the reviews.


On a lighter note.
1. A review of  "German LMG lying (449)" bemoaned the fact that the figures were all lying down.
2. A US customer informed Brookhurst hobbies that the AWI we had sent to the shop were in fact Confederates and thus no good for the AWI. The reason being that the figures had round hats on.

martin

[pbeccas (Paul)]

Wargamer reviews are wargamer reviews.  If I review a copy of 18th century Fighting Sail I will call on my experience of watching Master and Commander and reading the entire Hornblower series to explain how realistic the movement and combat is. 😀

[Bankinista]

Paul,
That's completely true and justified. A wargamer's realism is  "does it match what I expect?" Same goes for films, books, articles etc. Does the portrayal match what we want? History itself is factual and objective but we weren't there. So, we all have our views as to what we should see and comment accordingly. (My own example we be ancient or medieval wargames where I reckon that for a wargamer's convenience there are too many same sized units, all of a set weapon type whereas (apart from, say, the Romans) reality tended to be more mob like with  "bring what you can" .)
Derek

[pbeccas (Paul)]

I've often thought that myself Derek.  I've always pictured dark age, medieval battles, in my mind at least, to be massive soccer lout brawls. 

[sukhe_bator (Neil)]

A case in point about history being in flux is it wasn't so long ago that it was believed ancient galleys were crewed by slaves. This was conclusively put to bed by the reconstruction of the Athenian trireme. Instead most states had skilled professional crews who had more in common with a dragon boat team or rowing eight. Most galleys also left their sails ashore before battle. A sea-battle would look more like line ups of submarines facing off against one another... Such inaccuracies spill over into films (Ben Hur) and thence into wargames showing galleys under full sail...they should only have had the foresail at the prow in use for battle.

Another classic gaff is in Taras Bulba (1962) where the Polish cavalry are equipped with short spears like toothpicks. If you look closer they are supposed to be Winged Hussars! The costume designs were based off contemporary woodcuts which conventionally showed lances etc. truncated. Errors in historiography filter into popular culture and can easily be further skewed by the wargaming fraternity...

Once a weapon has been invented it rarely goes out of use. In the right circumstances the come as you are and use what you've got still holds true. Witness bows and fire arrows being used by US Marines to pinpoint Vietcong positions. There is a good reason that the dagger/knife/K-bar remains the main sidearm of the modern soldier...

[Moggy]

After a holiday on the Nile my preconceptions were also bruised. Hollywood portrays masses of slaves working on the pyramids and temples. Our guide soon corrected this preconception. Should a slave touch a temple or other "holy" place he would be instantly killed.  They were all buiolt by free people who came from all over Egypt during the inundation when they couldn't work on the land.

Hollywood has a lot to answer for.

Derek

[Bankinista]

Maybe I should have been more specific. "History itself is factual and objective" is true. It's just that, failing time travel, we are unlikely to know many facts.  Everything we know is 2nd hand at best and full of interpretation. Our own thoughts as to what is truth/fibs is based on films, books and, at best, the spouting of an historian who may or may not know what they're talking about. Maybe 40K (spit) isn't as ridiculous as may be first thought! Is fantasy and science fiction any further from reality than a lot of "history"?
Derek

[Moggy]

There is nothing better than a good read of a third hand history. Best fairy tales going!

derek

[sukhe_bator (Neil)]

What happened, happened, certainly. Documented history is all a matter of perspective. 'One man's rebel is another man's freedom fighter' and all that. Even if we had the benefit of time travel the projection of our own contemporary morals and perspective would skew what we saw. Over time the career of Alexander the Great has been interpreted by historians as a barbarian usurper (Athenian Greeks) a foreign invader and vandal (Persian histories) a great unifier of mankind (post WW1 league of Nations era) or a ruthless megalomaniac (1930s and Stalinist era).
Since wargamers mostly play 'what if' scenarios - wargaming in essence is a personal projection of a historical period with a fantasy twist.
First-hand historical accounts are always a better read than historical fiction imho.
The knack is to make a historical game feasible looking to suspend disbelief. Fantasy and Sci-Fi games stretch that disbelief, but in the end it is all miniature world-building...

[Sean Clark]

I'll have to disagree about historical fiction.

Bernard Cornwells Uhtred series was wonderful in evoking the dark ages, not just battle but life in general. How accurate was it? Who knows?

The Giles Kristian Dark Age and ECW novels are excellent too for giving a flavour of the time.

However, personal histories can be blinking awful. James Longstreets for example is so obviousley self serving its difficult to wade through (and I'm actually someone who thinks he was probably the best Confederate leader of the war!)

But, there are bad and good in both genres. I'll almost always choose to read non fiction over fiction, though it goes in peaks and troughs. I really like the work of Max Hastings and Antony Beevor, but many amateur historians scoff at their work with what can only amount to a pompous attitude that they know better.

James Holland is another. These people bring history into the mass market and fill the shelves at Christmas. People who have only a passing interest in history are more likely to find a Hastings book palatable than a more acknowledged academic text. Long may ghat be so.

Beevors next book is on the Russian Civil War, and as that is my next planned project, it comes at a particularly opportune time for me!

[Big Mike]

Sean,
Well said. Historical Fiction written well should entertain and invoke more factual research by the reader - in my view.
Historical Wargaming is the same.
Mike.

[Ben Waterhouse]

Agree with Cornwell's detail, but his characterisation of people is so ahistorical that I can't read them anymore.

[steve_holmes_11]

venn-pie-agram

https://rulesforcommonman.uk/index.php?topic=3801.0

Thank you. Now it makes sense.