Reasons NOT to refight historical battles

[Chris Pringle]

Thanks for all the great replies! I've responded in an update to the original blog post:
http://bloodybigbattles.blogspot.com/search/label/Reflections%20on%20wargaming

[paulr]

Thanks for sparking an interesting discussion

[ronan]

Thanks for sparking an interesting discussion

+1
(I don't have time to answer, but liked to read it !)

[Ithoriel]

It has indeed been an interesting set of threads here and on TWW.

All conducted in gentlemanly fashion too, IMHO.

Even if no minds are changed, it is useful to have one's beliefs challenged, to remind one why one holds them.

And, as has been said, understanding why other people believe as they do helps us to negotiate a world full of shifting and divergent beliefs.

Alas, recent events in UK politics have shown why that is important.

As to a more light-hearted matter.  I do not believe that there is any sequence of life choices that would have seen my putative affair with Claudia Schiffer become reality

[Heedless Horseman]

Historical Battles can be divided into individual Actions, rather than the whole shebang. A battle being fought as a 'mini campaign'.
You can start with historical forces, intention  and timings, maybe with some scope for tactical variation... but the commander actually there 'usually' knew what to do... so outcomes 'probably' similar.
BUT... as a mini campaign... when actions DO produce a result different to Historic... then, at some point, you could start a Big battle from the changed circumstances.

Eg. Waterloo. La Haye Sainte or Hougoumont fall early. Brit Unon Brigade reforms. Ney regonises cav charges futile.

This could be a useful way to try.... especially with several gamers drawing straws for sub commanders, rather than being Napoleon or Wellington! It also means that a Big battle can be fought in a reasonable amount of time, spread over meetings... or, tables! I have not club gamed... but an often heard fora gripe is the time a Big battle takes... setting up table, initial movement, etc. rather that 'Fighting'!
Solo... unless you have a 'games room'... it avoids Cats! lol.

[FierceKitty]

As to a more light-hearted matter.  I do not believe that there is any sequence of life choices that would have seen my putative affair with Claudia Schiffer become reality

Don't worry. I found her rather disappointing anyway.

[pierre the shy]

As to a more light-hearted matter.  I do not believe that there is any sequence of life choices that would have seen my putative affair with Claudia Schiffer become reality

Have you been watching Love Actually lately?  

Historical Battles can be divided into individual Actions, rather than the whole shebang. A battle being fought as a 'mini campaign'.
You can start with historical forces, intention  and timings, maybe with some scope for tactical variation... but the commander actually there 'usually' knew what to do... so outcomes 'probably' similar.
BUT... as a mini campaign... when actions DO produce a result different to Historic... then, at some point, you could start a Big battle from the changed circumstances.

Eg. Waterloo. La Haye Sainte or Hougoumont fall early. Brit Unon Brigade reforms. Ney regonises cav charges futile.

This could be a useful way to try.... especially with several gamers drawing straws for sub commanders, rather than being Napoleon or Wellington! It also means that a Big battle can be fought in a reasonable amount of time, spread over meetings... or, tables! I have not club gamed... but an often heard fora gripe is the time a Big battle takes... setting up table, initial movement, etc. rather that 'Fighting'!
Solo... unless you have a 'games room'... it avoids Cats! lol.

Yes, a great idea HH.

Historical refights often don't end up turning out anything like the actual battle.....as we discovered last Saturday when refighting Inverkeithing......all but one cavalry units on the table became casualties and the last remaining unit of Parliamentary horse decided to pursue their foes off the board. 

[Chris Pringle]

Historical Battles can be divided into individual Actions, rather than the whole shebang. [...] means that a Big battle can be fought in a reasonable amount of time, spread over meetings... or, tables!

A worthwhile exercise, no doubt, but you have the "wood for the trees" problem: fighting that division-sized action on the wing doesn't give you any feel for the big picture, and you are making decisions of a different scale and nature. That's why we wrote "Bloody Big BATTLES!" (BBB), so that you can indeed fight a whole battle on a 6'x4' table on a club night. We famously fought all three days of Gettysburg on a Monday evening club night, started setting up at 6pm, finished and packed away by 10 and in the pub for a celebratory pint.

I do not believe that there is any sequence of life choices that would have seen my putative affair with Claudia Schiffer become reality

She might have had to make some different life choices too. And you'd still need to roll lucky.  

Chris

Bloody Big BATTLES!
https://groups.io/g/bloodybigbattles
BBB on FB:
facebook.com/groups/1412549408869331

[Heedless Horseman]

Chris... good stuff! But, I suppose it depends on the desired persrpective. Refighting a historical batle, unless you make it ahistorical by changing dispositions and objectives... you already know the 'Bigger Picture'...until actions begin to alter history. Then, you can step back... and take an overview.

In very many post medieval battles, Brigade/Corps/Divisional Command unlikely to know Bigger Picture... what with terrain, smoke and communication... and would be very focussed on their own action. Although Aides might inform of successes elsewhere, faiures less likely to be transmitted. Even in the radio age, Commanders would know very little of events elsewhere in a battle... and often have difficulty knowing what was happening in their own sector!

[steve_holmes_11]

If we're going to recount our "didn't turn out as expected".

Let me describe an early attempt at DBA in 6mm.
Alexander Macedonians attempting to sweep Persian levy scrapings fomr Western Anatolia in the first match of a domino campaign.

We're new with the rules.
Macedonian front is quite narrow, so danger of gettting swamped on the flanks.
Solution, stick spears on one flank, mounted on the other and attack the enemy.

Great man launched his charge, rolls a 1 and gets quick-killed by the opposing light horse levies.
Loss of commander = loss of game.
And in this case end of campaign...


Domino campaign: Like a ladder campaign, but a strong invader begins at one end and attempts to topple the enemy defenders in sequence.

[Westmarcher]

A good topic that has had us all thinking.

Chris and the respondents have more or less covered the reasons for NOT fighting historical battles and whilst not a derailment (as is our want), the topic has sometimes digressed to a discussion on how we define Historical, Fantasy and Sci-Fi gaming (in my view, simply put, one solely involves contemporary combatants and weapons that actually existed and the other two do not).

Of course, all of our games are fantasy but the hobby is such a broad church with enthusiasts attracted to it for different reasons that it helps most of us to focus on our own areas of interest by splitting the hobby into these sub-categories.

When re-fighting a historical battle, I start with the historic deployments and, if appropriate, factor in the later arrival of reinforcements (although not averse to exploring some random variance in that respect either).

And although what happens in the game is fiction thereafter, for me it is enough to classify the game as 'Historical' because it only features contemporary combatants and weapons technology that actually existed.

I would also like to add that a 'game' that follows the actual events of a historical battle is a re-enactment - a different hobby from wargaming as I know it.

[paulr]

...how we define Historical, Fantasy and Sci-Fi gaming (in my view, simply put, one solely involves contemporary combatants and weapons that actually existed and the other two do not)...

When re-fighting a historical battle, I start with the historic deployments and, if appropriate, factor in the later arrival of reinforcements (although not averse to exploring some random variance in that respect either).

And although what happens in the game is fiction thereafter, for me it is enough to classify the game as 'Historical' because it only features contemporary combatants and weapons technology that actually existed.

I would also like to add that a 'game' that follows the actual events of a historical battle is a re-enactment - a different hobby from wargaming as I know it.

Three points, that I agree with, very well made

[T13A]

Hi

I am honestly not trying to be awkward but I am really struggling with understanding the point of re-playing a historical battle where the players have to use the historic deployments? Grateful for some enlightenment.  :-

Cheers Paul

[Gwydion]

Hi, I wrote half a page about why it's a great idea and then I thought: why do you struggle with the idea? - again not wanting to be awkward but I can't think of a down side to it (I play lots of other games but those starting from the set up positions of Austerlitz, Aspern, Wagram, Dresden, Quatre Bras etc have been the best).
Why do you find it odd? When you're fighting a historical battle? Where else would you start?

[Ithoriel]

At the risk of starting this all up again. If you don't have to make all the same moves as your historical predecessors why should you have to form up as they did? Surely, here's the terrain, here are the troops, get to it makes more sense not less?

[T13A]

Hi Gwydion

Well I guess as I'm playing the 'General' (C-in-C or whatever), I want to do things my way (but with the same historical conditions applying, forces available, perhaps with some variables as to weather and time of arrival of off table reinforcements etc.) and not be constrained by having to deploy 'historically' with likely historical results (particularly if I'm playing the loser)! It is a game after all and my intention is not to just replicate on the table what actually happened in real life (sometimes it will of course). If I'm re-fighting Waterloo for instance I do want to fight the battle of Waterloo (with the historical forces available) but not the battle of Waterloo as it was fought historically. If I'm 'Napoleon' I want to win after all and as they say 'I wouldn't have started from there'. 

Hope that makes some kind of sense.

cheers Paul

[T13A]

Hi

Just seen Ithoriel's post above (while I was writing mine) and he puts my point over a lot better than I did!

Cheers Paul

[Gwydion]

Cheers Paul, I think so. I guess for me the fun is having to work with what happened up to the deployment on the battlefield.
As Alexander/Kutusov/Weyrother/whoever was in charge, I'd really like Liechstenstein not to have bivouacked in the wrong place overnight, but he did - why should my orders have been better interpreted the night before?

I don't necessarily think the initial deployment always dooms an army to defeat or guarantees success either.

But by all means experiment with what if deployments, and hypothetical situations.

Ithoriel: As for why start where they did? Well because the circumstances of the campaign up to that point  led us there. If you want to fight the campaign, then fine, you may end up at Austerlitz or Aspern or Borodino but its very unlikely, and even more unlikely the available orbat will be the same - and you won't be fighting those battles, and perverse as it may seem to some, I want to, now and again at least!

[paulr]

One of the things I really enjoy about refighting historic battles, including initial deployments, is the better understanding I gain of the challenges faced by the commanders at the time.

As has been noted before this is a broad hobby and there are many different ways to enjoy it.

Personally I really enjoy:

• refighting historic battles
• fighting fictitious battles with historic forces
• refighting historic campaigns
• fighting fictitious campaigns with historic forces

If I had more time and storage space I would probably enjoy fighting science fiction and fantasy battles and campaigns. As it stands currently I don't have enough time to regularly get all my historic forces on the table

[John Cook]

Hi

I am honestly not trying to be awkward but I am really struggling with understanding the point of re-playing a historical battle where the players have to use the historic deployments? Grateful for some enlightenment.  :-

Cheers Paul

The point is manifold.

1.  It is a useful tool to test a set of rules.  If they are any good then the outcome should be something like the historical precedent.  
2.  If you want to refight, say, Waterloo, if you don't use the initial deployments it is another battle, not Waterloo.
3.  It gives the individuals satisfaction and enjoyment to do so, which is the point of all wargames.