"18th Century Wargamers Are More Polite" Topic

After venturing onto the oft-unpleasant board otherwise known as Napoleonic Discussion, I come fleeing back to the 18th Century board for respite and relief. I want to thank everyone for being so polite and keeping the discussions on a friendly, helpful and even keel. 18th Century enthusiasts don't seem to harbor hidden (or not so hidden, in some cases)agendas such as those found on the Napoleonic board nor do they resort to name calling and personal attacks. As bad behaved as some of the Napoleonic people are, 18th Century enthusiasts are the complete opposite. So cheers everyone, and pat yourselves on the back for being gentlemen. I doff my tricorne to you.

18th century enthusiasts should always permit the Napoleonicists to fire first--la noblesse oblige, you know.

PVO

Oh, please. I insist. You absolutely MUST fire the first volley!
No, no trouble at all, I assure you.

Perhaps it's because all of the officers are Freemasons.

It may come from the more gentlemanly manor of warfare in this period. "You may fire first, monsieur",says the French Colonel, with a sweeping bow and hat in hand.

IIRC, that Colonel was at the extreme end of musketry range, and said it somewhat in jest as a way to break up a stalemate.

Once you let the rabble think there might be a "baton" in their knapsnack, what can you expect? I say, don't give them knapsacks!

I am too tired to contribute intelligently. (At least today I have a real excuse)

Dynastic disputes are so much more gentlemanly than grubby politics, don't you think?

Kindly do not over-analize a bon mot. It is enough that he said it! To suggest that he had base tactical considerations in mind somehow diminishes it.

That is because warfare in the 18th Century is a far more humane affair, conducted according to the dictates of Reason.

"Perhaps it's because all of the officers are Freemasons."

Not all. But enough.

Allen

Pray tell, in what shire could be foiund this gentlemanly Manor of Warfare?

Allen

Why, Spelingford, naturally. It abuts Gramarchester, as you are undoubtedly familiar.

Ah, of course. The Marchioness of Gramarchester is renowned for her hospitality.

Allen

And her huge tracts of land, which often amounts to the same thing.

I've noticed the same thing and always wondered why. A good friend (Bill Amick) believes some of this is due to the lack of information from the 18th century. Since there is less primary information there is less to argue about so we just get along better. IMHO too many of the Napoleonic games & gamers have lost the focus of what a game really is. So many of the rules are at a Grand Tactical level (or higher with some!) which loses the intent of a battle while 18th century battles were for the most part smaller which means we can enjoy the game with a better perspective than our Napoleonic brothers. I'm sure we could go on and on about the differences and I've only scratched the surface but all in all we are a better, more well behave group of gamers than most. Plus I would also add that 18th century uniforms are much nicer to paint and look at then Napoleonic (heresy for some I know) so we take the time to paint them!

Ancien regime warfare was dynastic and limited in its aims, and therefore shaped more by and more amenable to the personal and the idiosyncratic individual; Napoleonic warfare was ideological and universal in its ends and therefore tended to abstract the individual into the universal. Once the person has been sacrificed to an idea, anything is permissible.

PVO

Perhaps it's the gentlmanly example set by Prof. Duffy.

Or perhaps it's that our toys rarely if ever form square; preferring to stand shoulder to shoulder like men and have at it.

It may also in part be to the polite writings from Peter Young and Charles Grant, then into the Seven Years War Association editors and authors and also Professor Duffy. Indeed the SYWA conventions are so relaxed, people tend to think of them as companionable at home settings with your close friends but in hotels. There has always been a polite tone in all this. While I was editor of the SYWA, we were always polite. This is only a part of the answer.
Sincere Regards,
Bill

18th century gamers are older and more mature??
Well, not all, Im just old.

I wanted to post on the C18th board, but I couldn't work the quill on my computer.

Mon cher Monsieur Alte Fritz,

It has been my experience at the Wargamer and one or two other forums that wargamers by nature are not a particulary gentlemanly lot. Aa a general rule, a cut above what you'd find on say, video gaming and car forums when it comes to intelligence or at least in the ability to spell and write complete sentences in English. But no more prone to gentility than the rest of the population at large.

I do agree, some of the courtly manner associated with our era of prefence does seem to rub off from the literature and flavor of the times.

Cordialement,
Steve

I have often thought the same thing. I think part of it is the relative lack of "Expert" academics with fish to fry and axes to grind (and books to sell) when compared to Napoleonics.

Despite it being the age of Old Fritz, The eighteenth C. also does not seem to generate the personality cults and rabid nationalism (on all sides) that bedevil Napoleonics. It is also interesting that some of the more "vocal" denizens of the Naps board do not appear, in fact, to be gamers.

It is a shame, really, as the colour and pagentry of the Napoleonic Wars really deserve more and the period has a lot to offer. I enjoy both.

All that extra lace has a calming effect.

Have to agree about Napoleonic gamers. I've always found the same true of American Civil War gamers (as opposed to Franco Prussian War gamers). The politics comes out and it is sharp and pointy.

I may not be a gentleman, nor my family,(but we are free now due to Napoleon's good graces)but I can aspire to having a noble character.

I did a Spanish Civil War game once with Fascists versus Anarchists, with Communist reenforcements. It was a great game because I didn't care who won. They were all bad guys as far as I could see. The Communists had the best songs, the Fascists had the best uniforms and the Anarchists were probably the most fun at a party.

Chris Engle

Stavka said it well; some of the more infamous "characters" on the Naps boards are not in fact gamers, but come here because they've been kicked out of other boards.

The hiliarious part about some of these guys is that they first got into this hash-slinging on the internet because they were part of a "cult of personality" around Napoleon or some other nationalist bent, yet over the years as they've fought the good fight, *they themselves* have generated their own cults of personality, and now they have e-fans who cheer them on, and help them curse the opposition. So the sides harden into factions, which are basically warring fan-clubs, and I get the feeling that spectators gather to watch the show, even while protesting that they wish the whole thing would just stop.

On the other hand, let's face it; the 18th century crowd is simply a lot smaller. So if you're looking for an audience, this would not be the place.

Read "Charge!", and see what a gentlemanly set of rules it is.
They were written by Peter Young, the Godfather of SYW wargaming, and one of the most decorated soldiers in history.
I will wager that his real war experience had a lot to do with his approach to wargaming.

Look at wannabe-ism in Napoleonics. Whoever heard of anyone having a "Frederick the Great" complex?

The causus belli of the era had a lot to do with it too. "This is not personal. Just business."

Messieurs je vous remercie pour votre aimable prose et je vous salue bien bas.

Alte Fritz,
I agree about this question. I prefer 18th C. board and the general respect and friendly attitude. I always need a rest in this board after posting at Napoleonic one. I like the two periods (superb uniforms and formations) and they are historically connected. I paint and game both, but I donīt understand the exaggerated belligerence about the napoleonic nations and armies. I like all the armies and I respect them, and I recognize all their successes and failures. And I am a wargamer but an academic historian too.
Thanks for your attention.

"Stavka said it well; some of the more infamous "characters" on the Naps boards are not in fact gamers, but come here because they've been kicked out of other boards."

Ironic how the ones who play with "toy soldiers" are more often than not the ones whose behaviour is less childish.

" That is because warfare in the 18th Century is a far more humane affair, conducted according to the dictates of Reason."
Or at least that's how we see it but after reading extensively on French and Indian war, I have the feeling it was not particularily human: American rangers scalping Canadian civils, French war party destroying a Miami settlement, Indian slaughtering English prisonners at Fort William Henry and English deporting all the Acadians down the Atlantic coast…
That said, I fully agree with you XVIIIe century board is one of the most pleasant at TMPC even though XIXe century and WWI ones are nice too. Perhaps because these historical period requires more personnal research, I don't know
Amicalement
Eric

"Whoever heard of anyone having a "Frederick the Great" complex?"

There was a chap by the name of Adolf. Was so fond of Freddie that he thought Joe Stalin would miraculously drop off the perch just as his armies arrived at the gates of Berlin. Complete bounder.

[And I am a wargamer but an academic historian too.]

Zaremba: Where do you teach?

It was that dratted French Revolution with it's citizens' armies.

Decidedly lowered the tone.

In Spain. And Spanish historians are trying to redress the traditional bad image of spanish napoleonic (and 18th C. too) armies (thanks to classic british and french historians).

"the traditional bad image of spanish napoleonic" next time they rag on Spain ask them if Bailen is a figment of your imagination.

I will have to keep an eye out for you, Zaremba, on the boards as the War of Austrian Succession in Italy is my favourite setting/period.

There used to be an off-topic forum at the Wargamer for discussing controversial topics like politics and Iraq. To put it mildly, it was a seething cesspit of vitriol. One of the more brutal practicioners of it was a fellow who went by the online nom de guerre of IGotMilk. Debating him was like trying to wrestle a wolverine. I despised him.

Then one day he shocked me by posting a wonderful SYW AAR complete with battle progress photos of his 15mm troops. We had a very nice discussion about it. Never disliked the man after that, no matter what else went down. What can we say about the 18th Century, it's like "music hath charms to soothe the savage beast" ? ;-)

Steve

I think positive labeling contributes as well:

War of Spanish Succession,
War of Bavarian Succession,
War of Austrian Succession…

With so much so succeeding going on, how could one remain negative?

Not to forget the War of Polish Succession, as well.

In keeping with this higher tone, perhaps the Jacobite Rebellions ought to be renamed the Wars of the English Succession? Food for thought. Why, thank you, milord, I *will* take another pinch of snuff.

Whoops, pardon me! Strike "English" up there and substitute "British". Dearie dear, where ARE my manners?

Nothing succeeds like success, I say.

Do permit me to offer you some of Lord Montagu's new gaming refreshments--slices of meat and cheese between two slices of bread--of whatever bon-bon will the clever Earl think next?

Or, rather, not Lord Montagu, but his father, the Lord of the Admiralty.

This all reminds me of a game that I had with Bill Protz awhile back. His French and my Prussian armies were beating each other senseless and towards the end of the game, Bill was positioning his cavalry for a herioc charge when suddenly, the rest of the French commands were beginning to break away. There was Bill, 60 fine horse standing there in the middle of the field on one side, and there I was with all of the artillery ever produced in Brandenbourg waiting to cut them down. Bill looked at me and nodded, I doffed my imaginery chapeau to salute him. He turned his all of his cavalry around (backs to my guns) and I had my gunners stand down. Not a word was spoken, but we both knew that it was time to stop the bloodshed that day and not inflict anymore gratuitous casualties. I imagine that there were many similar moments during the SYW.

The Poles Succeeded too, and if I recall, they fought all their battles in Italy.

Well it IS the Age of Reason after all.

I agree with what was said above about some of the regulars on the Napoleonic boards – two particular characters (and their cronies) drove me off TWO other Napoleonic boards in disgust – I just got totally fed up with all the bitching from both sides and quite appropriately, it reminded me of Ridley Scott's Napoleonic masterpiece 'The Duellists', where the original cause for the duel is long forgotten some ten years later, but they persist in fighting wherever and whenever their paths cross.

Just nobody here mention Liechtenstein's artillery system… I mentioned it once, but I think i got away with it…

The Poles Succeeded too, and if I recall, they fought all their battles in Italy.

Yes, John. That was in the 1730's and the Spanish Bourbons drove the Hapsburgs out of the Two Sicilies. I can't recall what happened up north with the French, Piedmontese and the Austrians and their client states but badly enough for the Austrians that the Spanish kept their gains in the south.

… in the peace treaty, that is.

the 18th century message board is club of polite gentlemen.

many thanks for that.

Best regards to all 18th Century enthusiasts

Gardes Francaises.

Ah, I believe it is the superb snuff and port .. erm sherry of the Century which produces such calm and reasonable discussions. *smile* I cannot imagine a spririted argument amongst a group of gentlemen as they dip, sneeze, wipe and repeat; can you?

"In keeping with this higher tone, perhaps the Jacobite Rebellions ought to be renamed the Wars of the English Succession?"

There have been at least three "Wars of the English Succession", starting with the events of 1066 and including the Wars of the Roses In terms of an 17th/18th context you have to stretch the whole thing from the Restoration of Charles II, through the Monmouth Rebellion and the accession of William of Orange to the conclusion of the Jacobite Rebellion of 1745.

Compared with the European Wars of Succession which were more international and intensive over a shorter period of time, this English conflict was much more a home grown thing (OK a few foreign regiments and machinations from time to time) and was conducted at a far more leisurely pace, taking 80 years.