Enlighten me. Why is the SYW superior to Napoleonics?

[fsn]

Please, I am after sensible discussion, not nah-nah nor name calling.

Gentlemen.

A few members of repute, and Fierce Kitty, have suggested that the Seven Years War is superior to the Napoleonic Era.

Why is the SYW superior?

[Steve J]

I don't think it superior (although I do prefer it) to Napoleonics. One could argue that the Revolutionary Wars were similar (and I use this word advisedly) to the SYW, but fairly quickly changed, both in scope and scale, with the arrival of Napoleon, but I stand to be corrected. Somehow Napoleonics have never really grabbed me, whereas the SYW has. Hard to put my finger on it really.

[jimduncanuk]

Less plumes to worry about.

[Leman]

Quite simply the SYW is manageable. The colour, flags, viirtually stable uniforms and the almost parity between the three arms makes it very doable as a wargames period. Napoleonics is vast, ever-changing uniforms, greater variety of troop types leading to wider variety of tactics and thus more rules and sub-rules. As someone who tries to avoid complexity I find SYW preferable to Napoleonics.

[d_Guy]

Not much experience with either. Have done re-enactment in the first and some wargaming in the second. The first has an enlightenment feel with, as Leman says, a more rational and manageable approach in wargaming. Also the first model "Brown Bess" is a better proportioned weapon than either the second or third model carried in the Napoleonic Era.

[FierceKitty]

(Someone may need to read this out to fsn)

Agree with Leman's point about balance; I find the balance of the big three arms unmatched. You really do need to get your money's worth from all three to win.

Historical significance. The world we're currently inhabiting was shaped by that war, more I'd say than any other since the Neanderthals backed down. Its results probably included i) a Prussian-dominated Germany, not an Austrian one; ii) the British Empire, and the fact that we're having this discussion not in French, but in English (giving a few UK members the benefit of the doubt); iii) the French Revolution (Britain had colonies to export the hungry and idle to); iv) the alarming realisation that Russia was now firmly seated at the grown-ups' table; and v) the creation of a really attractive Pendraken figure range.

Cultural elements. I can't insist that everyone agree with this, but I've got a thing for 18th century civilisation. Greatest age of music, last great era of architecture, some super-readable poetry, the rise of atheism, and a characteristic chuckle of derision rather than howl of anger at one's opponents. This shows itself in the uniforms; by contrast the Napoleonic stuff looks vulgar and overdressed to my eye.

National balance (not the same as point one). Of the Big Five, four are serious armies with marked strengths; only the French are in a fallow period between Louis XIV and Napoleon I.

Brilliant generalship. Yes, I freely grant Napoleon's breath-taking skill when he got it right. But he himself admitted he couldn't have beaten Fritz. And when we add Browne, Daun, Haddik, Clive, Wolfe, Henry, Seydlitz, Ziethen, and numerous victories against amazing odds....

The Hohenfriedburg march and tricorne hats.

[grahambeyrout]

Quite simply the SYW is manageable. The colour, flags, viirtually stable uniforms and the almost parity between the three arms makes it very doable as a wargames period. Napoleonics is vast, ever-changing uniforms, greater variety of troop types leading to wider variety of tactics and thus more rules and sub-rules. As someone who tries to avoid complexity I find SYW preferable to Napoleonics.

I think Leman, as covered it very nicely. Napoleonics can get very messy, with whole battalions in skirmish mode. The linear tactics of the SYW with professional armies lends itself much more readily to table top recreation to my mind than Napoleonics. Personally, I also think playing SYW retains some of the Old School charm of playing toy soldiers as extolled in books like "Charge!: Or, How to Play War Game" by Peter Young, and the whimsey of Imagi-Nations. 

[Westmarcher]

I like both periods but Leman nails it for me and I feel that, somehow, SYW is more manageable also.  For example, I used to have British, Portuguese, late Prussian, Austrian, Bavarian, French, Polish and Italian Napoleonic armies. When I started my wargaming collection again, I simply couldn't face the shear scale of building up a Napoleonic collection again. The SYW with its smaller armies but equally colourful uniforms seemed to be (and was) the answer. Simplicity also with no skirmish screens either to try and replicate (but you still have light troops in their own units that are somehow easier), no significant organisational reforms to be mindful of, few squares, almost no infantry attack columns or horse artillery but still plenty of tactical options.

Plus there's also something attractive about lines and lines of bicornes ....

[Ithoriel]

My experience of SYW gaming is limited to being co-opted in to a handful of multiplayer games, some time ago now.

From this thread I'm gathering that the undoubted attraction of the period is that uniforms are dull, troops types severely limited, tactics primitive and historical standards of generalship so low that even mediocre generals could shine .... amirite?

[jimduncanuk]

From this thread I'm gathering that the undoubted attraction of the period is that uniforms are dull, troops types severely limited, tactics primitive and historical standards of generalship so low that even mediocre generals could shine .... amirite?

Probably not!

[Leman]

It was also a time when buildings did not take up too much space.



Oh my goodness! just look at that dull army:



Just look at that - every troop type is the same:

[Ben Waterhouse]

It isn't, it's just different...

[steve_holmes_11]

You fellows have put up a good case for this 7 years war.
You've convinced me to take an interest.

[Chad]

"only the French are in a fallow period between Louis XIV and Napoleon I. "

Could someone elaborate on the word 'fallow' in the above context?

[steve_holmes_11]

As a complete beginner I found these two Youtube videos instructive.

Warning: Rubbish attempts at French and English accents.
I also learned that in the USA Mughal rhymes with Bugle.

But mainly, who was involved on each side.

Crash Course: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0qbzNHmfW0    Usually one of my favourite sources for history - a bit over enthusiastic on this one.

Feature History: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upcQ8IAxpV4