"The Origins of Miniature Wargaming" Topic

I have added a new essay to my website, outlining the origins and evolution of recreational miniature wargaming from the early 17th century to the late 20th century.

warartisan.com/essays

I hope you find this subject as interesting as I do.

Jeff

Meanwhile, the promised essay "Taxonomy of Defeat" languishes unfinished…. I can't wait to see what's behind that title!

A lot of history in the new piece I didn't know about. Thanks.

- Ix

Very informative and interesting – but Hans Anderson wrote 'The Steadfast Tin Soldier', not R.L Stevenson. Interesting to think it was a 'flat' though.

Oops. Silly error, now corrected. Thanks, Hobhood.

It had to have been a flat, considering that it was one of 25 miniatures cast from a single serving spoon. That wouldn't have been enough metal for that many demi-rondes or hollow-cast full rounds. Clearly, Anderson had flats in mind.

As for "The Taxonomy of Defeat" essay, Ix, it is being written by my friend Elliott (whom you have met), along with a companion piece. I put up the placeholder, not as a teaser, but as a goad to get him to finish it. I'm looking forward to it as much as you are.

Jeff

Nice little overview. Though you mention 18th century and then segue right into a mention of Victorian which seems a little off kilter since the latter is 19th century.

One bit that bears including is that Donald Featherstone credited Jack Scruby with being the man who really got the ball rolling for the modern hobby. Scruby's range of figures and his little pamphlet, Table Top Talk wasn't it?, inspired Featherstone's imagination – which led to all his many books. Important point not to be left out of the hobby's history. Those two men's efforts combined really are the catalyst that led to what we have today.

I've always felt Little Wars is vastly over credited which your article redresses to a degree. Certainly, it should be included – but not worshipped.

Interesting that Henry Percy had provision made for a box for his son's soldiers. Many modern wargamers are not that foresighted. On the other hand, others seemingly derive almost as much enjoyment from creating ways to store their figures as they do from painting them or gaming with them.

Grelber

Yes, well done.

This is something I hadn't seen before:

Interestingly, in the introductory chapter to the first published edition of his father's design, Georg Opiz claims that Hellwig's game was too simple and chess-like to be useful for instruction and that Venturini's game was too detailed for amusement, but that the elder Opiz's design struck a balance between them; thus, he fired the opening round in an argument that still rages furiously among wargamers today. From this point on, there is a parting of the ways between wargame designs that strive to be useful in understanding military operations, and those in which the primary purpose is
amusement and any resemblance to actual warfare is incidental. This split has been handed down to
modern wargamers in the form a completely fallacious but widely held belief that playability and
historical fidelity are mutually exclusive properties of historical wargames.

I certainly agree with that conclusion. You might think of adding something that von Riesswitz wrote in his introduction to his Kriegsspiel rules. Remember he was designing specifically for officer training and instruction without any concern for 'amusement.' Yet, he expresses his surprise when many of the Prussian officers found the wargame 'entertaining'. The distinction between 'learning' and 'play' is very hard to make, and probably a mistake to make them separate goals or see them as distinct qualities in wargame design. And I speak as an educator who has designed simulations and games for education and training purposes.

That significant observation was indeed made by von Reisswitz, but I didn't pursue it because the Prussian Kriegsspiel lies off on a branch of causality that leads to modern professional/military wargaming, which is outside of my subject (except where the late-nineteenth century popular perception of wargaming is greatly enhanced by the Prussian victories over the Austrians and the French).

His observation and your experience fit in with Koster's claim that the potential for "fun" in any game lies with its capacity for inducing learning.

Yeah, Koster's great.

That significant observation was indeed made by von Reisswitz, but I didn't pursue it because the Prussian Kriegsspiel lies off on a branch of causality that leads to modern professional/military wargaming,…

? Uh, I don't follow that conclusion at all. So much of what he did, both philosophically and mechanically, is still very much a part of the hobby of miniature gaming, let alone modern professional and military wargaming… and lets not forget the huge cross-over between the two in the last century. Even H.G.Wells was asked by the British Military to put together a miniatures wargame for them based on his Little Wars.

The two have indeed influenced each other throughout the twentieth century, and continue to do so, and the designs have at times been indistinguishable. I have separated them by their purpose, not their content. Military/professional wargames can be entertaining, and hobby wargames can be instructional but, though sometimes very similar, they differ significantly in their intent.

I have added a diagram to illustrate how I see the causality flow, but you could imagine double-ended arrows between the professional and recreational games throughout the 1900s.

Great read – thanks for posting

YA:
Yes, thanks for the graph. I can see the 'intent' or purpose distinction. Personally, I would have double-headed arrows between the military and the hobby from H.G. Wells to the present, as you note.

Here's the thing. "Intent" never has been a lasting distinction between the military and hobby, starting with von Riesswitz. Regardless of his intent, his wargame is played for pleasure starting in the 19th Century until today. This is true for so many wargames, computer, board and miniatures. It is no accident that Featherstone, Grant and Young were all military men.

Regardless of why a wargame is designed, that doesn't keep it from being entertaining… or useful to the military. Whole gaming companies are built on that fact, either taking military games commercial, or the other way around. That's been going on consistently since WWII.

It is no accident that Featherstone, Grant and Young were all military men.

True.

In a strange parallel way, it is also no accident (as well as ironic) that all of the late nineteenth/early twentieth century civilian gamers were artists and authors, and avowed pacifists . . . and by "pacifists" I don't mean in the 1960s sense of "no more war!", but in a very dualistic, Victorian way. They recognized that war was an ugly, unavoidable, necessary evil, but they also understood its appeal to the very human thirst for glory. It seems to me that the ability of miniature wargaming to address the glorious without the attendant gore and tragedy of real war was what made it appealing to otherwise peaceful men, and I believe that is a significant part of its continuing attraction to non-professionals.

I guess you know about "Playing at the world", the book written by Jon Peterson, and which has a very extensive description, if not the most complete to date, of the history of (miniature) wargaming.

Btw, I am a bit surprised you didn't give a nod to Tony Bath with his Hyboria campaign, which was a true pioneer in playing games based on fantasy fiction. Bath's rules have been hugely influential in developing the hobby in the 60s, much more so than Featherstone, in my opinion.

Yes, Phil, I'm aware of it. It's up next on my Amazon Wish List, but I generally don't buy a hard copy book until I've finished reading the previous one and I'm still working my way through Brian Greene's The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time and the Texture of Reality . . . which might take a while (and yes, my "other" hobby interest is theoretical physics. It complements military history nicely, don't you think?)

Obviously, I wasn't hoping to lay out anything like a comprehensive history of miniature wargaming in just a few pages. Nor was I very interested in attempting to trace, in any detail, what happened to the hobby from the '60s onward (except to note that it became a bit complicated after that). My purpose was to trace how and why miniature wargaming became a recreational pursuit for a primarily non-professional audience.

I wouldn't dream of belittling Tony Bath's influence on the hobby, but I think his importance lies more in the way miniature wargaming developed after it was already established . . . which is another story, and one which Jon Peterson, Christopher Lewin and others have probably already told better than I could.

Brian Greene's The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time and the Texture of Reality …

Is a terrific book. I have enjoyed all his works, though they certainly are 'dense'.

(Here I am, throwing in a big assist on the derailment of my own thread which, I admit, was my own doing.)

If you enjoy Greene's work, you may also be familiar with Quanta Magazine. If not, you may have some fun with this:

link

And now back to our regularly scheduled program . . .

To address Anderson's Steadfast Tin Soldier being a flat, watch this St. Petersberg craftsman's recreation, beginning at the 6:40 mark of this video:

YouTube link

or, just watch the whole thing. This is part 3 of a series; parts 1 and 2 should show up in the "Up Next" menu to the right.

WA:

Thanks for the derailing link. I wasn't familiar with Quanta, but it does look like well-done fun.

As for "The Taxonomy of Defeat" essay, Ix, it is being written by my friend Elliott (whom you have met), along with a companion piece. I put up the placeholder, not as a teaser, but as a goad to get him to finish it. I'm looking forward to it as much as you are.

It will be finished in May or June. I do have the slight problem of facing the American tax filing season between that an finishing it. The first part is finished. The second and more important part is in outline only.

Very nice read, thanks for sharing.

Thank you for sharing!