"Ancient Generals Were Untrained" Topic

Writing in Slingshot 275, John Hastings argues that one of the reasons that wargames cannot replicate ancient battles accurately is that gamers have more experience and resources than ancient generals:

…an ancient general was untrained. If he was lucky, he had some sort of apprenticeship under an experienced general. He might even have a book written by an experienced general. He certainly did not have the availability of innumerable books discussing every aspect of the general's and wargamer's art, nor the experience of fighting the huge number of battles that wargamers get through.

Do you agree?

No. He may not have been trained by modern standards but I can hardly believe that an Ancient government would place the well being of their entire people in the hands of a neophyte. So, yes. They had some form of training, probably in the form of rising through the ranks.

Ancient generals were aristocrats who whatever their culture were saturated in the military ethos of their society. From an early age they were aware of the kudos and gain brought by success in war and how it was achieved. The method of transmission might vary but the lessons were there to be absorbed. Hands on experience of war was usualy available too.

So its not a staff college but its not untrained either. Therefore I disagree.

I think it's more to do with gamers playing a game, an artificial construct of the human mind with known parameters and ancient generals fighting real campaigns in the real world. It's the difference between playing chess and sword-fighting.

No.

Just off the top of my head:

Thutmose III was sent to the army as a young boy for training with career generals. Began commanding armies at age 16 under the rule of his mother Queen Hatsheput.

Romans had a strict series of pre-requisite job training appointments they had to hold before they were eligible to run for a Consulship.

Matilda of Tuscany had been on campaign with her father in the field before she inherited and became Countess and general of her army.

WIlliam Marshal had been serving in the field from a very young age to learn his craft long before becoming Marshal.

I'd have to read his reasoning and sources, but off-hand that's one of the most absurd things I've heard this week.

Typical wargamer …over-congratulatory self-appreciation.

It's the difference between playing chess and sword-fighting.

I'd say it's more like the difference between carving a chess board and building a Bugati Veyron from the ground up from scratch.

Well, if he puts it like that, I disagree.

I do think, however, ancient generals were "untrained" compared to wargamers in another sense: few of them fought many pitched battles; certainly none fought hundreds, while a wargamer may easily "fight" hundreds of miniatures battles. An ancient general in a major battle will generally have been far less experienced at what he was doing than we are when pushing lead.

(On the flip side, he probably had a far better grasp of logistics than most wargamers ever attain.)

This is not the first time Mr Hasings name has been raised on this forum see TMP link as in the previous discussion see link his view went down like a lead balloon in that too.

John, T.Meier and Ohbugg3r have it spot on. Ancient China is a great source for evidence for how well trained, learned, prepared Generals were in the art of war.

I see what he is trying to articulate but he is coming at this from completely the wrong angle…….

Ancient generals, no, in general. :)

Before the 1st Melinnium AD, there wasn't nearly the luxury to place someone without training and experience in command of an army as there was in the post-Medieval world. From a historical standpoint, I think that would be the exception rather than the rule. Then again, how many surviving detailed histories of command selection criteria do we expect from societies who select unknowledgable generals?

I can hardly believe that an Ancient government would place the well being of their entire people in the hands of a neophyte.

Roman Consuls had all seen service in the military (usually as an officer in the cavalry) , but their first real taste of high command only happened when they became consul (occasionally praetor). A cavalry commander of 100 men one day, could be in charge of 80,000 after elections the next.

However, it must be remembered that most armies commanded by such men had quite rigid deployments. The army would probably line up for battle the same way whomsoever was in charge. When it came to good and bad consuls, what determined which was usually more strategic in nature: Knowing when to fight and when not to, diplomatic skills, etc.

You can dress up the hobby in as much historical accuracy as you like, its still just a game.
no ones life or livelihood is on the line.

no ones life or livelihood is on the line.

Tell that to Phil Barker.

How can he say that after reading Sun Tzu's "The Art of War"?

Tell that to Phil Barker.

I cant, Bill . He and I dont write in the same language.
:P

Mr hastings is not completely wrong and nor are those that say the comparison is too apples and oranges to make much sense.
Wargames armies are a whole lot more capable than their ancient models.
For example, most army lists try and give each army some of each type of troop, heavy foot, light foot, distance weapons, close weapons, heavy and light cavalry. The wargamer, who someone wisely pointed out has fought a hundred actions, can combine all those troop types to grreat effect. In real life most armies just were not that flexible. Also, as HG Wells said, there are no little lead widows and importantly no grieving parents. So it doesn't matter to a wargamer if he accidentally wipes out the entire young nobility of Macedonia. That means that the wargamer can regularly take risks with units when the chance of success is quite low. Similarly, it doesn't matter to me if I win, but finish the battle with no cavalry. However, for an Ancient general losing the ability to faorage and protect supplies might well be fatal.
I suspect that most of us think around an ancient battle and wonder if we could reverse the result. Because we always know what came next or could take a model from somewhere else we would have a massive benefit of hindsight to employ. Want to win thre battle of Hastings for Harold?? First start a few years before and train 5000 longbowmen in Wessex (his earldom so a posibility) Then, on the day of Hastings detach 500 mounted men to circle around the Normans and attack them at the same time as the A/S army sweeps down the hill.
Where it all falls down is that the armies of the day were crude insatruments and the chain of command so slow that all the clever stuuff we could think of would be impossible.
Roy

So it doesn't matter to a wargamer if he accidentally wipes out the entire young nobility of Macedonia. That means that the wargamer can regularly take risks with units when the chance of success is quite low. Similarly, it doesn't matter to me if I win, but finish the battle with no cavalry. However, for an Ancient general losing the ability to faorage and protect supplies might well be fatal.

I try very hard not to play with such folks. I like individuals who play as if there is a tomorrow, and a country/city to answer to.

Pyrrhus was THAT sort of a general. Most weren't and gamers shouldn't be either

Otherwise, I might as well play in WH40K tournaments.

I have no experience in battle.

I have no experience in battle.

I once was at a shoe sale at a big department store. Does that count?

A cavalry commander of 100 men one day, could be in charge of 80,000 after elections the next.

However, unlike most wargamers, he wasn't commanding alone.

He inherited a group of people who did have some experience with the larger numbers. Kings, even absolute kings, had councils.

"an ancient General was untrained…"
Sometimes yes, more often No.
No ancient Spartan General was untrained. Every Spartan was trained from birth to death, and they did not use books because, Lykourgos believed that any useful lesson could only be taught be personal example. He believed that people who think they learn from books are at a disadvantage.
There have already been examples of how the Chinese and Romans achieved the rank of General. Others like certain Athenian Generals (Cleon for instance) were merely demagog politicians. To say all ancient generals "did" or "didn't" have adequate training is a massive generalization (no pun intended).
In gaming ancients I always prefer to see players improve as they play and learn by experience. I believe that is the most authentic way to learn.

The legendary and apocryphal cocktail party chat between Scipio and Hannibal is enlightening, I think.
You know, the one where S asked H to rate the top generals of all time. (Sounds like a TMP Poll…)
H picked Alex first, of course.
Second, he picked Pyrrhus, and for what seems to be a strange reason. Pyrrhus was an expert at laying out camps. Now, why would this be important? Because that is the nitty-gritty of "soldiering".
We like to say that the amateur studies strategy and tactics, the pro studies logistics.
Well. ancient armies could not move a mile without good logistics. If not, they would starve.
This argues that ANY ancient general had to know the nitty gritty, and thus all were "trained" in the "martial arts", as originally conceived. Even a teenage juvenile delinquent like Alex knew this.
so would virtually all young Spartan, Persian, Roman, etc officers.

Being "trained" does not mean that you won't make stupid mistakes in battle. It means that you will die in a soldierly way.

I wold even argue that "modern" generals were not as well trained as ancient ones.
We read that Napoleon's army was starting to starve just a week after he BEGAN the 1812 invasion of Russia. Take that for what it's worth.

I do think, however, ancient generals were "untrained" compared to wargamers in another sense: few of them fought many pitched battles; certainly none fought hundreds, while a wargamer may easily "fight" hundreds of miniatures battles.

He probably did have a lot of experiene in skirmishing, small battles, fighting in the line as a unit commander, etc.
Hopefully…

And, whatever wargamers are "trained" in, it has more to do with playing and understanding the rules than anything relevant to actual combat.
And, the relationship between the rules and what actually went on can be quite tenuous.

Haha….

I had training from soceu (us Army) and i was a german airborne ranger… Now I organize Sales ( also shoes) in Department stores…… And that is a good Basic training for winning tabletop Games…
soceur.eucom.mil

So selling shoes does count as Training and in this Sense all generals are trained.

:))))))))

Good Lord! This is one of the most stupid statements I have read! It looks like something that a politician could say!

Hmmm… in the sense that I have read books by Patton and Guderian…. I have an advantage…. however I have no access to the tactical manual of Pyrrhus…. which has disappeared. There are many other tactical manuals that are no longer extant…. so we are the ones mostly ignorant.
Generalization and ancient warfare discussion is quicksand. There were Spartan Kings that could move a Spartan army all the way to Thrace…. then there were some just years later incapable of reaching Thebes.
We in all gaming environments have hindsight. I agree that list based games allow too much leeway to tabletop gamers to game the system to their benefit…. in that respect the ancient general was limited to what he had in hand or could buy on the current mercenary market.

I am reminded of an episode of the X-Files in which one of the Lone Gunmen (Langley, I believe) told Agent Scully "I haven't played Dungeons and Dragons for 12 years without learning a little something about personal bravery." Yeah. Right.

More resources – of course.

Better training – horse puckey. Alexander didn't roll dice; he did it the hard way.

LT

"A cavalry commander of 100 men one day, could be in charge of 80,000 after elections the next."

I can think of more recent cases like this. Albert Sidney Johnston's largest command before the ACW was leading a brigade against the Mormons. They ran off his baggage animals and ended his campaign. Then he became a very unsuccessful theater commander. He reverted to brigade commander at Shiloh and was mortally wounded.

Eisenhower never commanded so much as a platoon in the field. He was a staff officer who suddenly became an army group commander. And he won.

Schwarzkopf commanded a battalion in combat before heading up the Desert Storm army.

I don't think playing board games or games with toy soldiers would have prepared any of these gents for their starring roles. Perhaps Krieggspiel might have been some aid.

In the modern sense, I agree. But most ancient--let us consider up to about 700 AD--generals were aristorats who were taught to be warriors and leaders of warriors from early childhood. So they were "trained."

Wargamers fight far more battles than real life generals, in any period.

It is mysterious how Spartakus & Yehuda ha-Maccabi hit the ground running as superb generals…

They had not read lots of history books explaining all their future battles before they fought them.

Modern generals and their staff do wargame, although not with minis. These "staff Training Exercises" are computer based and always include logistics.

I have seen and participated in these exercises from battalion to army level. They aren't usually as fun as our wargames are.

Wargamers fight far more battles than real life generals, in any period.

LOL

Wargamers play far more GAMES than real life generals in any period.

Games.

GAMES.

I've been working closely with US Army SMEs designing cognitive training games for the Army for over a decade and I maintain games are not battles. Ultra-realistic state-of-the-art simulations ARE. NOT. BATTLES.

They can teach. They can inform. They are not battles.

Playing Call of Duty no more makes you a trained Soldier (let alone super commando like some folks think) than playing DBA makes you Alexander the Great.

But oh-boy! it sure is fun to think highly of ourselves and pretend! :D

Darthfozzywig, well said. And much more nicely put than I might have.
Hell,the most attention we pay to logistics (just to name one discipline) is making sure we bring beer to the game and that the pizza(s) are ordered in time.

What a load of malarkey. The ancients were in a near constant state of war with someone, whether it be pitched battles or raids or fending off raiders. Nothing trains like real life.
In the medieval period, the entire social structure of the upper class was built around warfare and training for warfare.
Wargamers are a pack of posers (no offense guys) compared to that.

Hmm methinks there is some confusion between experienced and trained. Assuming that you can call wargaming experience of course.

The Solferino area was the Austrian army's annual exercise ground. They fought the battle over & over again in exercises- & promptly lost it when they fought it for real.

Many statements here are true.

I played many live role-playing games, sometimes as an officer where I gave order to people fighting with rubber weapons.
I was in many historical re-enactments, sometimes as an officer giving orders to people doing mock fight with blunt weapons to entertain the public.
I am a wargamer since a long time.
I also had actual military training in the French Army Reserve.

I think that every part of this gives some training. But I have never been in any REAL battle where people would have wanted to kill me, so I still don't know.

But oh-boy! it sure is fun to think highly of ourselves and pretend!

That's half of the fun :0)

Hell,the most attention we pay to logistics (just to name one discipline) is making sure we bring beer to the game and that the pizza(s) are ordered in time

And how often do we even get that much right? :D

Wargamers play far more GAMES than real life generals in any period.

Games.

GAMES.

I've been working closely with US Army SMEs designing cognitive training games for the Army for over a decade and I maintain games are not battles. Ultra-realistic state-of-the-art simulations ARE. NOT. BATTLES.

Nice to see this attitude. A while back, I and a few others were called "Nazis" by a well known game designer for expousing this very idea here on TMP. His games, of course, were accurate simulations.

Wargamers are a pack of posers…..

So true, and no offense taken!

His games, of course, were accurate simulations

I'm sure his were the great exceptions. :)