Wargamers often describe themselves as historians but are they really? Does the very act of wargaming turn a nerd with a head full of facts into a real historian?
Interesting stuff Lee! What about fantasy or sci-fi wargamers? And what about the distinction between gamers vs. reenactors or reconstructionists. Gaming often contains simplifications or unhistorical choices, mechanisms and other accommodations to introduce balance or increase playability. These are at least to some extent the opposite of history/research as they don't attempt to reflect real events. I consider myself a gamer, a "tabletop reenactor" and a historian. Sometimes these overlap but being any of those doesn't make me consider myself the others by default
Cornelius raises an important point. A friend of mine studied for a teaching certificate as a mature student. He and I belonged to the same reenactment group and were interested in the military history of the black powder era. Once, he attended a lecture by an academic who, I suppose, would have called himself an 'historian'. During the course of the talk, the speaker suggested that one of the advantages Parliament enjoyed in the ECW was its control of London and the Tower with its arsenal of 'muskets and bayonets'. My friend pointed out that they bayonet was not invented or used in the ECW. The speaker rounded on him, declaring, "I'm interested in history, not things!" - a very strange attitude...
Very interesting post Lee. I agree with much of what you say. However, the recreation of battles on tabletops multiple times to deepen our understanding must surely live or die on the efficacy of the rules, how chance is dealt with, and in our understanding and execution of the command decisions of those who fought those engagements. To ignore these (especially the last) may perhaps just lead us to seek to change historical outcomes, not understand them better.
For RPGs I produce write-ups for the games I run and post them on my website, which also hosts write-ups from friends. However, on wargames I am not so diligent. I think that's because our RPGs have continuity but the wargames are much more "one-off", though recently I have been in a Chain of Command PSC and a Frostgrave campaign (the latter sort-of recorded on my site).
Thank you for leaving a comment. I always try to reply as soon as I can, so why not pop back later and continue the conversation. In the meantime, check out my YouTube channel Miniature Adventures TV
Interesting stuff Lee! What about fantasy or sci-fi wargamers? And what about the distinction between gamers vs. reenactors or reconstructionists. Gaming often contains simplifications or unhistorical choices, mechanisms and other accommodations to introduce balance or increase playability. These are at least to some extent the opposite of history/research as they don't attempt to reflect real events. I consider myself a gamer, a "tabletop reenactor" and a historian. Sometimes these overlap but being any of those doesn't make me consider myself the others by default
ReplyDeleteYou defined "Research" but what's a "historian"?
ReplyDeleteCornelius raises an important point. A friend of mine studied for a teaching certificate as a mature student. He and I belonged to the same reenactment group and were interested in the military history of the black powder era. Once, he attended a lecture by an academic who, I suppose, would have called himself an 'historian'. During the course of the talk, the speaker suggested that one of the advantages Parliament enjoyed in the ECW was its control of London and the Tower with its arsenal of 'muskets and bayonets'. My friend pointed out that they bayonet was not invented or used in the ECW. The speaker rounded on him, declaring, "I'm interested in history, not things!" - a very strange attitude...
ReplyDeleteVery interesting post Lee. I agree with much of what you say. However, the recreation of battles on tabletops multiple times to deepen our understanding must surely live or die on the efficacy of the rules, how chance is dealt with, and in our understanding and execution of the command decisions of those who fought those engagements. To ignore these (especially the last) may perhaps just lead us to seek to change historical outcomes, not understand them better.
ReplyDeleteJust a thought...
For RPGs I produce write-ups for the games I run and post them on my website, which also hosts write-ups from friends. However, on wargames I am not so diligent. I think that's because our RPGs have continuity but the wargames are much more "one-off", though recently I have been in a Chain of Command PSC and a Frostgrave campaign (the latter sort-of recorded on my site).
ReplyDelete