Reading, Research, & Rumination
I am not a subscriber to The New York Times. However, on occasion, I will pick up a copy after completing my early morning perambulation. This infrequent purchase depends on what draws my eye as I peruse the sections of the paper while standing in front of the display rack. As luck would have it, the October 31 edition contained, among dozens of other articles on a wide variety of events (obviously), two pieces that applied to my fairly long-standing interest in matters pertaining to ancient history. The lead story, under the ‘International’ label, was titled “Virulent Plague Might Have Obliterated Stone-Age Scandinavia.” This piece was based on an article that appeared in the July issue of the journal Nature. I do not subscribe to this publication either. Having recently been through a pandemic, like billions of others, and as I am currently living with the short, medium, as well as long-term effects and impacts of that crisis - again, like billions of others - this was a difficult but interesting as well as relatable read. I went online to search for more information and discovered, unsurprisingly, that similar scientific evidence and papers about this topic have been published before. Beneath this summary report about the “Neolithic decline,” a second article attracted more of my attention. Being a student of ancient military history as well as an ancients wargamer with around 12 years or so of cumulative experience, the piece titled “Shred of Tunic at Greek Tomb In Dispute: Was It Alexander’s?,” was more interesting and more applicable or relevant to my range of interests in this broad period of history. (The generally accepted range is 3000 BC to 1500 AD, though there are different camps or schools of thought on this topic.) It was also, thankfully, not at all a triggering read. Even though I have been comparatively quiet on the Society of Ancients forums for some time, I thought I might copy and paste the links to these news items into a brief message and post it to the discussion board dedicated to ‘Ancient and Medieval History.’ A quick search of the recent activity on this sub-forum suggested that neither of these topics had been shared. Unfortunately, my impromptu plan was foiled by a “subscribe now” window, which sprang into place and prevented interested parties from reading the complete online version of the information discovered by happy accident yesterday morning. Weighing this loss against the wealth of material already posted to this particular discussion board and figuring that one or more of the accomplished, active as well as erudite members of this long-running and august society would likely find and post one or both items in full, I accepted this minor defeat, and proceeded to trim the torn out page of newsprint, cut the two articles apart, fold each neatly, and then put them in a reference folder which was, in turn, placed in a storage bin. Whether or not these articles and their information will be of future use remains an open question.
_____________________________
Memory is an interesting thing. Suffering cats, my former high school English teacher would probably roll her experienced eyes at that kind of sentence. Some readers may puzzle over the choice of interjection as well. Let me start again. Memory is an amazing and interesting faculty. There, that’s a little better, even if I do say so myself. I have not read very much about the neuroscience of it, but the few articles and books I have managed to wade through have left me mentally breathless as well as more appreciative about how the human mind - and especially memory - works. For example, one day last week, I suddenly recalled that there was a wargaming scene in the movie “Chitty Chitty Bang Bang.” Or at least I was convinced that there was. It turns out that I, or my memory, was correct. There is a You Tube clip, approximately a minute in length, which shows two minor characters in this 1968 film playing at war with what I am guessing are some version of the well known Britains. The models or miniatures deployed on the floor of the quaint English house appear to be made of wood, not metal. They are painted; they are flats (designed to show the left and right sides of the figure as opposed to the front and back), and appear to be somewhere around 30 centimeters/12 inches in height. This very short sequence of two adult men (actors) playing at war with toy soldiers reminded me of the photograph found at the top of page 55 in Henry Hyde’s THE WARGAMING COMPENDIUM. The historical picture was taken from the January 1913 issue of the London Illustrated Gazette. Anyway, this sudden and random memory got me to thinking. I wondered if this scene might be the first example or evidence of wargaming in modern cinema? To be certain, I am using or proposing a very broad definition of wargaming, but even so, I did wonder. In the very short scene from the film, the two gentlemen, sorry, actors (they were pretending to be veterans of a shared military service), do not use any obvious or familiar rules. Instead, they engage in verbal exchanges of what’s happening on their terrain-free “battlefield,” with the occasional book - wait, what?! - or similar household item thrown to inflict damage. Anyway. This line of thinking led me to recall the earlier film “Cleopatra,” featuring Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton. Although I would argue that it cannot really be called wargaming, I believe there may be something relatable or relevant in the scene where Cleopatra, along with Roman and allied generals as well as servants, are standing around a large table that is populated by miniature models of ships. As the Hollywood interpretation of this battle unfolds, the condition of the opposing navies are updated on this model tabletop. (Just imagine a modern wargaming show or convention where a group put on a demonstration of an ancient naval battle and during the course of talking with interested bystanders, set fire to their model ships!)
To be certain, wondering about the coverage or representation of the hobby through the medium of film or television is not original. A brief look at TMP informed that this question had been asked and answered on two previous occasions. The first exchange was initiated in May of 2010. (For those readers who may be interested, please see: http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=198693.) The second exchange or update on this particular topic took place in March of 2019. (Please see: http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=503804.) On a related note, I seem to recall that there was a dedicated program (produced by the BBC, naturally) which covered or promoted the hobby of historical miniature wargaming. The program name and when it was broadcast escapes me. My guess is at some point during the 1970s. However, I do believe that Peter Gilder was one of the principals behind or involved in the limited project. Further rummaging around in the massive “junk drawer” of the internet turned up more than several results regarding the 2020 film, “Miniature Wargaming: The Movie.” I discovered this ‘passion project’ through one of the gentleman from Little Wars TV. His review of the effort, if I recall correctly, was lukewarm. He seemed more disappointed at a missed opportunity than anything else. It might be suggested that the niche market movie earned two or two-and-a-half stars out of a possible four.
Personally, I find human memory to be a very interesting and complex topic. I really should read more about it. The goal would not only be to expand my basic knowledge of how it works and perhaps even improve my own memory, but also find out, perhaps, why it is that I can suddenly recall the wargaming scene from “Chitty Chitty Bang Bang” - a film I have neither watched nor thought about in decades - but why I am not able to, even if offered a thousand dollars or threatened with a mild electrical shock, name and or describe what I had for dinner last Thursday evening.
_____________________________
The accomplished, prolific, and respected academic Adrian Goldsworthy provides the ancients wargamer interested in refighting the 57 BC contest of The Sambre with a wealth of information (including a couple of maps) on pages 244-250 of his well-reviewed 2006 book, CAESAR - Life of a Colossus. As is often the unintentional case, after randomly rereading these pages, I began considering ways in which I could approach this subject as a possible wargaming or just as a writing project. To be sure, this source was reinforced by a number of others. Anyway, for some reason(s), I found myself drawn to and then rather occupied with the idea of a Battle Day Anniversary.
In 2005, for the second Battle Day gathering hosted by The Society of Ancients, Caesar’s near catastrophe against a confederacy of Belgic Gauls was selected for reconstruction on a number of tabletops and with a number of rulesets. According to the coverage provided in successive issues of Slingshot (241, 242 and 243), this sequel to the premiere Battle Day was deemed a success. Evidently, there were nearly 60 people present, and nine rulebooks were employed to stage, by my count, 13 refights of the historical engagement. Mid April of next year will mark the 20th anniversary of this particular Battle Day. My guess is that it will not be marked on anyone’s calendar or calendar app. My amateur actuarial estimation is that a small percentage of the almost 60 attendees are, unfortunately, no longer with us. Then again, perhaps a handful of those who were there will take a few moments and reminisce about their participation. Given the passage of time, and given the production of new sets of rules as well as new scales and types of wargaming figures, I think there should be some serious consideration given to establishing a 20th or 25th anniversary of either all of the previous or just a select few Battle Day events.
Looking over the rules poll/survey posted by ‘Imperial Dave’ (aka Dave Hollin, aka his Editorship, and soon to be honored (deified?) as a modern day Roman proconsul or Eastern Potentate as a result of his dedication to The Society and Slingshot), I cannot help but wonder what The Sambre would look like and how it would play if the following sets of rules were used: To The Strongest!, Comitatus, Commands and Colors, FoG (Field of Glory), Hail Caesar, Impetus, Tactica II, Morten et Gloriam, Scutarii, Sword and Spear, SPQR, and Strength and Honour. By my count, this informal list adds up to an even dozen rulebooks. If a third of these permitted two games to be staged on the hypothetical day and there were five or six participants for each refight, then the success achieved by the original 2005 Battle Day could be easily matched if not easily surpassed. Finding this idea rather appealing, I seriously considered preparing and playing to completion a mini-Battle Day of The Sambre. As to the number of games and sets of rules, there would be three. First, I would try Simon Miller’s no need for dice or rulers To The Strongest! The second reconstruction would see Arty Conliffe’s Tactica II rules being used. The ‘match game’ would be played with Triumph! That’s another rulebook that can be added to the above list. To reiterate, and understanding that I represent a completely minority if not fringe opinion, I think a 20th or 25th anniversary of Battle Day Sambre would be educational, entertaining, and an excellent experience overall.
Coincidentally, as I day dreamt about the possibility of arranging a 20th or 25th anniversary of a particular Battle Day, I took the time to “attend” Big Lee’s talk about Gatekeepers. (Please see his video post of 20 October: Gatekeepers can grow the hobby.)
I found myself both distracted by as well as interested in this 10-minute presentation. As of the early morning of 02 November, I have watched it three times. On the second and third viewings, notes were typed, which sometimes required me to pause Big Lee, so that I could finish either a basic transcription or record my own comments and thoughts about what was being said. Anyway, while I maintain that a Battle Day Anniversary is a good idea, it seems that the Veteran and or Purist Gatekeepers, as defined by Big Lee, might block this suggestion. As I understood the informal lecture, Veteran Gatekeepers are usually resistant to new developments (i.e., ideas) and or change, while Purist Gatekeepers are adherents to certain ways of doing things. It seems a fine distinction to make, but I guess I can see their respective points. I do not dispute that The Sambre has already been selected as the historical battle for The Society’s signature annual event. I would simply offer that if it worked so well in 2005, I should think that it would work even better in 2025 or 2030. To adopt one of the other points made by Big Lee in his presentation, a Battle Day Anniversary would be an opportunity to invite newcomers to this kind of gathering. It would also serve as a second chance for further study and would allow those who were too young or otherwise occupied to assume the roles of either Caesar, Labienus, a legate/tribune, Boduognatus, or one of his allied kings/chieftains.
_____________________________
After an embarrassing as well as frustrating number of attempts to get something decent down on electronic paper - which is apparently part of my “process” - I managed to produce some 5,000 words for a post tentatively titled: “Embedded with the Eighth and Eleventh: Tinkering with Tactica II, Refighting a Sector of the Sambre.” Unfortunately, and to my further consternation, the “writing wheels came off” as I struggled with the ‘Comments & Critique’ section. Rather than consign this attempt (draft number 15, I think) to the scrap heap, I decided to salvage what I could in the hopes of providing at least a summary of this thwarted effort. The new plan was to limit the narrative or report to less than 1,000 words.
As indicated by the partially alliterative and perhaps overly long title, I was using modified Tactica II rules to refight just a third of the Sambre. In brief, the tinkering was focused on reducing the figure base dimensions provided as well as how the cohorts of a Marian legion were modeled. On this specific point, I referenced and relied quite a bit on the information found in THE ROMAN ARMY AT WAR 100 BC—AD 200, also written by Adrian Goldsworthy. In terms of numbers, the Roman legions contained 240 and 249 figures respectively. This strength represented 7,824 heavy infantry according to my “established” or “work in progress” scale, and added up to a value of 3,912 points under the rules. The Viromandui or Veromandui were depicted with 14 warbands, organized into 3 divisional commands, which were led by an anonymous king. These warbands contained 580 figures, so there were 9,280 Viromandui present for battle. In terms of points, this contingent was valued at 3,802.
As this project was really more of an experiment than a wargame, the terrain and the troops were simple, functional, and inexpensive. As a result of this non-traditional approach, they were less than visually appealing. (For context, consideration, and comparison, I have included a couple of pictures and captions at the end of this section. Referencing Big Lee’s short video post about Gatekeepers, it seems fairly safe to remark that the several identified types of these self-appointed individuals would likely find a lot of negative things to say about my treatment of Caesar’s center at the Sambre. Then again, perhaps they would voice their opinions by not making any comments.) As part of the experiment, I did spend some time estimating what the cost might be for a Marian legion modeled with traditional 28mm miniatures, for a legion depicted with 28mm or 18mm figurines secured from WoFun, and then with 6mm figures purchased from Baccus. The final price tag will vary of course, depending on one’s preference, talent, and amount of discretionary income available. Obviously, refighting the whole of the Sambre is going to be more expensive than fighting just a fraction of it. My approximate estimate for eight Tactica II Roman Marian legions in 25/28mm scale, painted and based to acceptable wargaming standards, was 4,000 dollars US. This projected cost does not include estimates for any auxiliary troops, terrain materials, or the miniatures required to represent the three tribes of Belgic Gauls.
With regard to special rules for this scenario or again, experiment, there were just two. First, each Roman cohort had to pass a Control Test in order to reorganize and reform itself. (Studying the chapters of Caesar’s narrative account in addition to the analysis of modern scholars, it seemed reasonable to categorize the Romans as unprepared for action, at least at the start of the historical contest.) Second, all melees would see the Romans benefit from an uphill or upslope advantage.
The resulting “wargame” was a simple, straightforward, and rather bloody affair. A vast majority of the Roman cohorts were able to reform and prepare for action before the wave of barbarian warriors surged against their segmented line. The initial volleys of pila did not do much damage, but the short swords and shields certainly did. The additional weight of second line cohorts joining the general melee helped the Roman cause while hurting that of the Viromandui. Given the number and depth of the warbands, and given the confines of the “model” battlefield, the Viromandui were not able to gain a flank or use their greater numbers to effect. Like most Tactica II melees between powerful opposing units, the close combat raged for a number of turns and saw lots of six-sided dice being thrown. Eventually, perhaps inevitably, the power of the Viromandui attack was held, cut into smaller pieces, and then thrown back towards the river. Of the 14 warbands present, eight had been destroyed as fighting units and two of the surviving group were disordered. The Romans, as might be expected, had been bloodied. They had lost one cohort from the Eleventh. Four other cohorts, two from each legion, were dangerously close to being broken. Light to moderate casualties were inflicted on several other cohorts.
Reviewing the findings of this experiment, it seems safe to remark that it was a qualified success. Despite the complete lack of traditional terrain and figures, a historical result was achieved, though not exactly as described by Caesar. The rule adjustments seemed to work quite well, but this is an admittedly subjective assessment. Further experiments and study is needed before a well-supported conclusion can be reached and these findings put into a possible future article or post and shared with the larger wargaming community.
From the Viromandui right/Roman left, looking across the simple battlefield. Constrained by the hedges, the barbarians are only able to position roughly half of their strength in the fight. Initially, the Roman cohorts are outnumbered, but pila volleys, training, and the arrival of other cohorts helped contain and control the situation. Again, the functional nature of the tabletop or laboratory work surface is very much in evidence, as are the assorted play aids, including the open rulebook in the upper left.
From just behind and above the approximate Roman center, where two cohorts have formed up just in time to receive the powerful charge of the bodyguard unit of the Viromandui leader. The design and information of the involved units can be easily seen; the additional stands denoting various leader types are evident, and there is an “Impetus” marker visible as well. This melee advantage has not helped all that much as evidenced by the red marks: each cohort has taken a single loss, while the veteran warriors have lost 10 “figures” so far.
_____________________________
The value and necessity of diversity was mentioned a number of times during the Gatekeepers video blog posted on October 20. I do not disagree with the well known, prolific, and respected gentleman’s viewpoint. In fact, this particular video post has, unexpectedly but also appreciatively, given me quite a few things to think about as I complete the switch-out of seasonal wardrobe, turn back the clocks, and start making lists and checking them twice for the too rapidly approaching season. (I understand that holiday music will be playing on certain radio stations soon. Some may have already started. On an early morning walk, I was not all that surprised but admit to being a little disappointed when I saw that one house in the neighborhood had set up quite a few Christmas decorations. This walk took place on Saturday, 02 November. Anyway.)
In the course of reading and researching for one of my failed-to-get-anywhere drafts, I noted an observation made by one of the luminaries who had been present at the 2005 Battle Day event. This gentleman reported that he “looked at all the other wargamers as they arrived.” He did not catalog them exactly, but did observe that there were: “Short ones, tall ones, young and old, bald or hairy, one or two unhealthy looking specimens to be sure, but mostly just normal looking blokes. With one exception to prove the rule, we are all male. To outsiders we are all anoraks, but who cares?” Given the passage of time and the accuracy of actuarial tables, it seems logical if a bit cold but also unfortunate to conclude that some of the old ones as well as the unhealthy looking specimens are likely no longer with us. It also seems that this hobby may have more than its fair share of unhealthy specimens, given its essentially sedentary nature: hours of sitting, priming, painting, and basing, or in front of a monitor while fingers “fly” across the keyboard producing the latest blog post or writing an article for this or that publication.
I was not at Battle Day 2024 (Ilipa, 206 BC), and will not be at Battle Day 2025 (Maldon, 991 AD). I suppose I could dream about attending Battle Day 2026 (as yet to be determined and announced), but that notion seems unrealistic. My guess is that the observation regarding the diversity of the attendees in 2005 could be applied directly to those fortunate enough to have participated in 2024, and to those few, those lucky few, who will be in attendance next April or May. As impromptu reinforcement of this assertion regarding an observation, I took a look at the Partizan pictures included in the July 2023 issue of WARGAMES illustrated®. To be sure, there were many spectacular photographs of the wide variety of games on display. The six snapshots which showed attendees seemed to offer visual confirmation of the above description. From this year-old publication, I moved on to watch a more recent video report of a refight of Acre (1189 AD) by the popular and prolific lads at Little Wars TV, courtesy of a link provided in a Society of Ancients sub-forum. Striving to be curious as opposed to judgmental - a problem that Gatekeepers do not appear to worry about very often if at all - I wondered or worried about the accuracy or accepted definition of “a broad and diverse collective” when it came to describing the wargaming community. Returning to the internet for more information and possibly some answers, I found several links that may or may not be useful when readers and other interested individuals consider the intertwined issues of Gatekeepers and diversity. Please see: https://wavellroom.com/2021/01/15/wargaming-has-a-diversity-problem/; https://paxsims.wordpress.com/2020/12/29/the-wargamer-diversity-in-wargaming/; https://nerdist.com/article/how-and-why-miniature-wargame-companies-are-choosing-to-embrace-diversity/, and https://25.wargaming.com/come-as-you-are-celebrating-diversity-and-unity-in-the-world-of-wargaming/.
There can be no debate: I am neither as connected nor as dedicated as Big Lee. I did not attend Partizan 2024; I did not read that issue of WSS wherein the op/ed piece about “the cult of negativity” was published, and I do not belong to a club. (Full disclosure: I never have belonged to a wargaming club or group.) I am quite sure that our introduction to and development within the hobby are fairly or significantly different. That much admitted, we can still call ourselves wargamers. We can still call ourselves students of military history. We are, then, members of the same, large community. The comparison of the hobby to a city was well done. The natural division of “tribes” of wargamers with specific or varied but related interests into neighborhoods was also rather neatly explained. However, I confess that I struggled a bit with the surrounding wall and the numerous gates interrupting that figurative and presumably defensive or protective barrier. If the overall goals of this hobby community are invitation, inclusion, growth, and building on or from the natural tension resulting from the “conflict” or competing values of different tribes/neighborhoods, then why have a wall and a fair number of gates in the first place? Walls and gates, or Gatekeepers, seem the direct opposite of invitation and inclusion. (To continue the community as city analogy, I picture the neighborhood where solo wargamers live as being one with a lot of tall but well kept fences enclosing nicely manicured yards. I think their houses would be of moderate size and made mostly of brick. This particular neighborhood would probably be voted the quietest in the city for 20 or 30 years running. Then again, solo wargamers might prefer to be removed of the hustle and bustle of the city, perhaps living on 50-100 acre plots of rural land. In addition to a simple brick ranch style house, there might be a bunker or shelter of some sort, a fresh water well, perhaps a generator, and a perimeter fence - most likely constructed with barbwire.)
Returning to the current or apparently ongoing issue of Gatekeepers, I wonder, given their self-appointed status, if it would be possible to just ignore them? Also, I wonder if it might be feasible to eliminate the gates - however those are ultimately defined and or accepted. What about forming an army of advisors, coaches, mentors or something similar to “combat” Gatekeepers? These certified or maybe even notarized individuals, hopefully a truly diverse collection of individuals and representative of the larger population, would be responsible for encouraging newcomers instead of controlling their exploration or worse, excluding them because they did not meet “standards” A, B, C, D or however many there are depending on the period, scale, type of Gatekeeper and other variables.
_____________________________
Hoping to rid myself of a bothersome set-the-clocks-back “hangover,” I went on a brisk early morning walk. (The weather was crisp and fairly clear; the pace of the walk was not what could rightly be called brisk, but was sufficient enough to fall under the category of “moderate cardio.”) Unfortunately, the dull pain and slight pounding in my head had barely been wiped away by the slight autumn breeze before it was replaced by a random collection of ideas, tangents, and partially formed paragraphs having to do with how to draw this post to a close. This cacophony of jumbled thoughts was not helped by the audio coming from the front pocket of my hooded sweatshirt. In the interest of being more transparent, but not at all interested in turning this section into a forum for the debate and discussion of current affairs and politics - especially politics, the readers should know that I was listening to the 30 October episode of Pod Save The World.
Throughout the rest of the morning and into the afternoon, I continued to struggle with crafting a good or at least acceptable conclusion to this post. My memory came to the rescue again, as it directed me to the blog of the respected and well known New Zealand (formerly of Japan) gentleman-wargamer Aaron Bell. I copied and pasted his entry dated July 4, 2023, thinking that this would be an excellent template, thinking that I might draft my own version of the “state of my wargaming nation.” Attractive as this option was, I decided not to risk sullying his well earned reputation or perhaps unintentionally damaging my own (seems a tad presumptuous on my part . . .) by offering some imitation of his excellent work. After mulling it over for another hour or so, the decision was made to simply recap/review what had been typed so far. In this process, I would try to be careful and limit any additional remarks, as I did not want to start a new line of discussion or thought.
The news items about the or a Stone-Age plague and the possibility of finding a piece of Alexander the Great’s tunic remain safely in their new storage place. The mention of dashing young general has not inspired any ideas for fielding a Macedonian army on my tabletop. The earlier scenarios covering Gaugamela have satisfied this particular appetite. For the foreseeable future, it appears that any further “discovery” of relevant or interesting ancient history material in the pages of The New York Times will also be the product of happenstance.
Within this opening section, I made a brief mention about being “comparatively quiet” on the various sub-forums of The Society of Ancients. In his July 2023 post, the honorable gentleman admitted to “falling out of love” with this long-standing organization. I confess that I am not quite sure how I would describe the current state of my “relationship” with The Society. Based on my limited level of experience, at least when compared to some of the Silver Shields out there, and based on what I have read on a number of blogs, it seems fairly common for wargamers to go through “peaks and valleys” of engagement with and interest in the hobby. I have not dedicated a lot of resources trying to figure out exactly why my activity and productivity have decreased. (My last post was published on July 28. My last wargaming report post was made earlier in that month.) It may be a product of the complications, the various daily stresses, and the fewer in number small victories of Life, or it may be as simple as the change of seasons. In this part of the world, at this time of year, the fields are bare, the leaves will soon be completely off most trees, temperatures will continue to drop, and an amount of snow will eventually cover the ground. I have not read any accounts describing or reporting on the hibernation habits of historical wargamers, but it does appear that my level of engagement is currently dormant. (Coincidentally, recent check up reported that I had a resting heart rate of 50 beats per minute. However, I have not being eating a lot of salmon lately!)
Acknowledging the previous discussions on TMP, it might be interesting to attempt to find and catalog the instances when wargaming, and the members of its extended family, appeared in movies and on television. These examples would have to be classed as “general public” for lack of a better term, as contrasted to the purposeful instances such as the BBC program or the 2020 film about the hobby. I wonder, has there been a more recent project completed and offered for mass or niche market consumption? I also wonder if any demonstration or participation game has even been staged at a convention or show that featured those wooden soldiers or similar models featured in that short scene from “Chitty Chitty Bang Bang.” Given the advances in technology and the presumed reduction in cost, I wonder if, one day, we might see a reconstruction of the Sambre wherein quite large, but flat as well as painted models were used. Perhaps the Roman commander(s) might throw small models of pila, fabricated out of some soft material, so that errant volleys would not result in injury and subsequent litigation.
Rereading Adrian Goldsworthy’s summary of the battle between the legions of Caesar and the massed warriors of Boduognatus was, as I believe I related above, unintentional. Given my resulting and passing preoccupation with some kind of Battle Day Anniversary treatment of this engagement, I cannot help but wonder if I would have developed the same opinion for one of the other earlier Battle Day events. As I have recently looked at Gaugamela, this better known contest did not spark any similar impulse or interest. However, as it was the debut Battle Day hosted by The Society, perhaps it should be given due consideration? Then again, it seems that a sufficient chunk of time has passed for other historical battles to be reconsidered and refought. I think it would be interesting and worthwhile to see how the current crop of rulesets and the current generation of ancient wargamers handled Dorylaeum (1097 AD), Cynoscephalae (197 BC), Poitiers (1356 AD), Callinicum (531 AD), and Zama (202 BC).
Thinking more about what Big Lee said in his video post of October 20, from what I can recall (there’s that memory question again), it seems that I have read more about Gatekeepers than I have had actual experience with these “self-appointed guardians.” Coincidentally, both occasions were the result of interactions with editors of publications catering to the hobby. In the first case, I would have to do more research to get all the details, but it concerned the submission of a wargame report to a well regarded magazine. In a message from the editor, I was told that he had decided to “punt” and publish my article. The problem - depending on one’s viewpoint or to which tribe one belonged - with my report was that it was about wargaming without traditional miniatures. Evidently and not surprisingly, the vast majority of the readership of this publication were traditional historical miniature wargamers. I have not been able to secure a full record of the reception or “fall out” of this editorial decision or more accurately, of my approach to wargaming, but I believe that I have what could be called a supportive comment or reaction somewhere. In this response there was evidence as well as apparent acceptance of the division between at least two tribes of wargamers. In the second case, a different editor informed me that I wrote too much, that I submitted too many articles. He was afraid of or concerned about the possibility that my material could possibly “dominate” the pages of the bimonthly journal under his current stewardship. This struck me as rather odd, as the publication depended on the efforts on unpaid contributors. To be completely honest, this action negatively impacted my relationship with the magazine. This ironic rejection no longer stings (time heals and all that), but it did leave me scratching my head for a while. From the perspective of a number of years, I suppose this run-in with a Gatekeeper could be viewed as a kind of blessing in disguise, as this unexpected development eventually led me to starting a blog, where I could be my own Gatekeeper. Looking back on both of these episodes, it seems reasonable if not necessary to categorize them as “very minor incidents” in the long sweep of the history of wargaming. There is evidence out there, somewhere, of the “punted” article, and the confusing rejection did not adversely impact the viability of the other publication.
Returning to the start of this paragraph and expanding more on having read about instances of this kind of activity, on various discussion boards and across a wide variety of blogs, I have seen opinions stated and defended, I have seen discussions devolve into debate and then, on occasion, become contests of vituperation. The inability to hear the tone employed and interpret body language often makes it difficult to determine how what is being said is being communicated and so, engage civilly. The most recent example that comes to mind was when someone made a comment about the appearance of an individual sitting at a tabletop. The apparent attempt at humor was not received well by another person who was actually present at that same tabletop, who knew the details of the situation. Sufficed to say, there was an exchange. Things seem to have been sorted, but one does wonder about the impression or impressions that were made. I relate this event as Big Lee mentioned both the positive and negative impacts of Social Media as well as the importance of the following the “golden rule” when it comes to commenting. Anyway, I continue to mull over whether or not I want to “jump through a certain number of hoops” so that I can read the original article that inspired Big Lee’s post. I should hope that I have gleaned enough information from repeated viewings and from taking more notes or correcting those previously typed that I can offer fairly informed remarks. Anyway, here is an update as of the afternoon of November 03: According to the most recent data, his October 20 video post has been viewed 638 times and has earned 94 thumbs up or likes. Thirty-five comments have been left, some of which were replied to, while others were left alone. The well known and prolific gentleman has posted two new videos since. If the reader is not aware of Big Lee, his site is definitely worth the investment of your valuable time.
What’s next? That was the big question or at least sub-heading which ended my June 13 post. (Please see “Miscellaneous Musings . . .” if interested.) I suppose I could ask the same question here. Perhaps, just to change things up very slightly, I should phrase it as, “Okay, what now?”
I did not have an answer then, and I feel that I should apologize to the 24 followers (23 really, as one name is listed twice) because I don’t have one now. I certainly don’t have anything that would resemble an agenda of games to play or other projects to get done and posted before the end of the year. Excepting the recent and again, accidental interest in experimenting with and interpreting a section of the Sambre, my wargaming activity and engagement remains fallow instead fertile. If there is any change to this status, those much appreciated and mostly passive followers will be the second, third, fourth, and fifth, etc. to know.
