"Hessian Grenadier Battalions" Topic

"Why? Who has time to game a forgone conclusion?"

Gamers do this all the time. Some battles were "forgone conclusions," so you see if you can do better than history.

Yes and no. It can be fun to play a scenario to see how well you can do in an impossible scenario. However, there is a difference between extrinsic and intrinsic values for a scenario. Replaying Aspern-Essling is fun; making sure the Austrian command staff hampers your tactics is to demand the same result. It can be done but it is certainly only a subsection of the dedicated who can continuously commit their spare time to this.

In any case, please keep my original post in context.

Historygamer said: I really like how British Grenadier models the German troops – as second rate, more prone to be slow and always fussing about their formations (via the DPs they accumulate and how they have to get rid of them before engaging in combat).

Why? Who has time to game a forgone conclusion? Is this what wargaming has really come to or is it that a certain type of gamer tends to post on the board?

I stand by what I said. Although, it has been partly answered.

You don't overrate a unit (Neapolitans a good example from the Nappy era) so the battle is more "balanced" or Spanish troops, which tended to be quite poor, sometimes training, othertimes leadership. As with AWI, the Continentals are most of the time going to be at a qualitative disadvantage to the Crown Forces. Not always. So you do what you can. Sometimes your second rate force will surprise you.

The morale and competency ratings for both Neapolitans and Spanish are often downgraded but often for all the wrong reasons and without much more thought than copying what many others do. The idea that something needs to designed for failure because it historically failed is following the image of history without paying attention to the enjoyment of something historical.

Additionally, I didnt say you had to rate Neapolitans as elite troops, I suggested that you dont have to make sure they will never, ever perform well.

HG has covered the deployment of Hessian battalions quite well. Needless to say, with a few exceptions they were not heavily engaged in a lot of the bigger battles. If you read McGuire's book he discusses at length how the British attack on Birmingham Hill basically left them in the dust, marching slowly in close order.

Yes, well I am beginning to see that he is an expert and is doing a smashing job keeping the membership small and elite.

Don't like BG? Don't play them.

It is certainly trending this way.

They are very good rules, very historically accurate (a must in a game for me).

Well, just think, if I dont use them, that's more BG for you!

I was turned off AWI minis for years because too many rules basically modelled 7YW bloodbaths--something that rarely, if ever, occurred during an AWI engagement.

I enjoy a good bloodbath, not least because I find wargaming to be more release and leisure rather than walking in the footsteps of the Founders.

I realize there is a market for strict reenactment rules, just like there is a market for asparagus ice cream…

Seriously, I think it is good that there are a set of rules that give you a reenactment satisfaction and I want you to enjoy yourselves. That has never been an issue for me; it's the curious approach that because they're niche they have to also be popular.

Also, the idea that the end result justifies the tedious journey. The rules could be better organized and could emphasize other factors rather than straightening the lines to achieve a period feel.

Ive said this many times but it hasn't registered. "But it's historical" is a reason for you to play them but not reason for me to spend energy, time and resources on them. I am already in for 50 bucks or so.

I understand that historically many of the soldiers suffered from chronic diarrhea. Maybe a gamer should eat some spoiled food before each game of BG? :)

Perhaps if you could show that 'converged' is a military term, instead of 'provisional' or 'consolidated' you might actually contribute to the discussion.

Or not.

>Seriously, I think it is good that there are a set of rules that give you a reenactment satisfaction and I want you to enjoy yourselves. That has never been an issue for me; it's the curious approach that because they're niche they have to also be popular.

They're a very good set of rules that provide a realistic AWI experience. I realize that may not be to everyone's taste, but nobody is forcing anybody to play the rules.

Not sure what "reenactment satisfaction" is or why you came up with it.

Kevin. I pointed out Kronoskaf using the term. Roger pointed out Nafziger.

Is there an OFFICIAL Dictionary of Military Terminology somewhere that you are requiring us all to use? You know. With a Pentagon Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, version 2020?
Please tell us where we can find it. I certainly do not wish to commit Error.

In fact, you seem to be the only person insisting on this particular "proper" terminology. I've seen the term "converged" in countless reputable works in use.
If you demand a link or source of a "reputable" source, I already supplied Kronoskaf. If you are going to claim they aren't reputable, then you're the only one.

In retrospect, does the term usage really matter? We all know, or supposed to know, the reference to which it's being used.
Pop, soda, cola or tonic what's the difference as long as we get we want.

Converged battalions.

One usage:
PDF link
Army.mil address?

link
Defense news.com?

Swedish converged grenadiers.
link
Napoleon-series.org?

Note that I have not gone to (spit three times on floor, spin widdershins) Wikipedia. (Ptui!)

It's in common use. As a military term. Deny it if you wish, and I know you will, but there it is.

Is there an OFFICIAL Dictionary of Military Terminology somewhere that you are requiring us all to use?

I am not requiring you or anyone else to do anything. I am merely pointing out a correct military term, instead of what is apparently a wargaming term being used instead.

You say it's incorrect. Repeating it does not make it so. Show me. Prove it.

In other words, you are saying we are wrong. Prove it better than "because I say so".

Is there an OFFICIAL Dictionary of Military Terminology somewhere that you are requiring us all to use?

I am not requiring you or anyone else to do anything. I am merely pointing out a correct military term, instead of what is apparently a wargaming term being used instead.

In 27 years of military service, the term 'converged' for a provisional unit was never used.

If you can find it being used, in English, in an actual military doctrinal publication, then that may be useful. If not, the point is moot.

Are you referring to 'Kronoskaf, the virtual time machine'?

Really?

Project Convergence.
link
From Defensenews. com

As for whose argument/contribution is "useful" and what is "moot", you are not the final arbiter of that.

I don't believe, after reading the article, that 'Project Convergence' is dealing with provisional or composite units, but capabilities. The two are definitely not the same thing.

Nice try-next?

You are asking for use of the word in a military context. As used by a legitimate military. In English.

The onus is still on you to prove that we are wrong, and not "because I said so".

And you don't get to keep moving the goalposts as to what is an "acceptable" use of the word.
Now it's down to "in English".
Now it's down to "doctrinal military publication."
That wasn't your original demand, but you keep moving the goalposts when your requirements are met.

And speaking of "useful", why do you feel compelled to rush in and chastise the wargaming heathens every time the phrase "converged battalions" is used?
If, in your opinion, the usage is incorrect, the users know what it means, and it is in widespread use?
How "useful" is it to keep beating that dead horse?
Last I noticed, this site is dedicated to miniature wargaming. And if, as you insist, I believe wrongly, that the phrase is anathema, what difference does it make? Does it mean that I'm wrong when I paint up the von Minigerode Grenadier battalion, that I shouldn't call it "converged"? When every source I have read about Hessians uses that phrase?

I wish there was a Greek term for the logical fallacy of "moving the goalposts", but a Google search eluded me.
I'm sure there is one. Maybe.

Here's a source that has nothing to do with wargaming.
link
Scroll down to Army and then Infantry.
"Converged" Grenadiers.

It's in English. But I'm not letting you get away with moving the goalposts.

Are you next going to require that the term be used by the US military?

Oh look! Here it is in French!
link

Found using the phrase " bataillon de grenadiers convergé".

Nothing to do with wargaming.

One problem is the nature of 'converge' as a verb. Its function is primarily intransitive. Vehicles on separate routes might converge (intransitive); having done so they might be described as 'converged'- (past participle used adjectivaly) i.e. the state achieved as a result of the converging process. It would be less likely, perhaps, to find 'converged' used with the transitive sense of some person or some agency having actively 'converged'the traffic.

If we relate the above to 'flank battalions' (a term which of course avoids this whole conundrum), it is worth pointing out it is not the battalions that have converged but the component flank companies detached from their parent regiments. So, to describe a flank battalion as 'converged' is not an accurate description and, dare I say it, not the best English.

Clearly, a flank battalion made up of detached, 'converged' flank companies is a composite- which is the term with which I was more familiar till I began frequenting TMP forums and other enthusiast websites, perhaps those with a predominantly transatlantic usage. Where or when it originated, I couldn't say.

'Provisional' is an organisational term relating to the ad-hoc nature and temporary existence of a battalion 'composed' of companies detached from their parent regiments. It is less descriptive in relation to flank battalions but it is at least accurate.

It's a free world but I have always been puzzled as to why the term 'converged' should find favour when more accurate terms like 'composite' or 'provisional', or indeed 'flank' were available. In my view, it doesn't to satisfactorily identify what it sets out to describe,

Perhaps if you could show that 'converged' is a military term, instead of 'provisional' or 'consolidated' you might actually contribute to the discussion.
Or not.

I think not…

I have to agree with John. You keep changing the rules. It's like when they switched Darrens on Bewitched. Dick York to Dick Sargent; like we wouldn't notice. Hmmm, Sargent York. Anyway, switching Dicks mid season isn't cool.

Reputable authors and historians found the term converged completely acceptable. It's just a word, it means to bring together as we already know.

Acceptable military term, who cares. I served, we had volumes of terms that everyone from O-10 to E-1 understood very well. Official? I highly doubt it, but we communicated with said terms and kept the machine rolling.

Call it a 'Wargamer Term'? Well that's fine, it's a Wargamer Forum, or at least I thought?

Live, Love, Laugh, and Roll More Dice!

A friend who served as an officer in the Marines told me an amusing anecdote.
As a joke, "someone in charge of a platoon" would give the order "Mill around…MILL!"
They thought it was a private joke in the company. Then said officer heard his Major "suggest" "Have the men mill-round-mill."
Perhaps my friend was merely bs-ing a civilian. It's been known to happen.
But it shows how an "unofficial" term is instantly understood.

Oh look! Here it is in French!
link

Found using the phrase " bataillon de grenadiers convergé".

Nothing to do with wargaming.

I think that is maybe a French guy thinking he is being more wargame-y or Breetesh niche military historian (ala Osprey expertise) by employing an Englishism or Franglais.

I couldnt get to the link because of severe virus concerns over scamware but the verb "converger" doesnt mean "re-combined" in French.

Minipigs;
At least in Quebecois the term is "convergent". Given French, either Metro or Canuckistanian isn't John's first lingua franca (so to speak) I think the point is made.

And I agree (and can confirm) what 7th VA Cav says about military terms being at once both exact and imprecise.

If a wargamer told me about a battalion being "converged grenadiers" I would understand what that person was saying.

Finis.

Eric

MiniPigs.
I did take 3 years of High School French. So the phrase is not immediately ridiculous, grammar wise.
But the important thing is that when I Googled the phrase "battalion de grenadiers convergé", it brought up that link.
The on-line dictionary search for "converge" does not immediately bring up the usage we are endlessly yammering about here, but so what?

You and Kevin can die on that hill if you want to. I think it's a silly pedantic argument. And as Eric says, it's a phrase we wargamers instantly understand. Arguing whether it is used in English in blah blah blah is being needlessly, and continually argumentative. It's becoming a "gotcha I win!" tactic. As far as I am concerned, you don't win.

Me, die on the converged grenadier hill? I use converged grenadiers all the time. I dont know if it's accurate but I'll never get myself to stop using it.

But it ain't French…

From the previously supplied link of the battle of Craonne.
In the OOB, it lists on the right wing of the first line, Independent Brigade under Generalmajor Vasily Ivanovich Harpe (Garpe), three brigades of converged Grenadiers.
Interestingly, two are described as "convergent", and one as " convergés".
Make of that what you will.

So, both 7th and I have dug up accounts of the term "converged", used in non-wargaming contexts.

I reject the goalpost moving insistence on it being in English.

Some thread. 54 posts deleted, and it crawls back up to 128.

You and Kevin can die on that hill if you want to. I think it's a silly pedantic argument.

Then why are you participating in it?

…it's a phrase we wargamers instantly understand.

And that is exactly my point-it's a wargaming term, just as 'medium cavalry' is and not a military term.

Thank you very much for making my point.

Why am I participating in it? Because you seem determined to prove that I (we) are wrong.

I've never used the term "medium cavalry" for Dragoons. I only play Napoleonic games when someone in the club who is interested in the period (which I am not) puts on a game. The term does not arise in the rules they use. Nor in any SYW games either.

And "converged battalion" is not just a wargaming term. 7th and I have located plenty of non-wargaming instances cases where the term is used. Your point is not made.

Wargamers recognize the term "cataphract", as well as "cuirassier". So much that it annoyed me greatly when reading Gore Vidal's "Julian" that it irritated me no end when he called cataphracts cuirassiers. He should have had a wargamer proof read his text before publishing. Maybe his editor should have caught it. But it didn't spoil the book.

Good grief. The devil finds work for covid-virus idle hands. Why don't you guys go play with your toy soldiers?

Doc! I was worried about you!
Glad to see you posting!

I feel it might be worth pointing out that in the identically titled thread started by WillBGoode on 6th Dec, ('Hessian Grenadier Battalions')- the terms 'composite,' 'combined,' and 'converged' are used in almost successive posts, and everybody has remained kameraden.

Arguably

I actually have a JOB (for real $$$) during the holidays, and no, it is not as Santa Claus. So painting and posting are suffering. I'm happy about it, though.

Particularly not as the mall Santa who got his ass fired for telling a kid no, he couldn't have a nerf gun for Christmas. In fact, my younger grand-daughter wants and is getting from us a nerf bow-and-arrows set.

What???
That's like telling 7th that he can't have any strip mall zombies!