*
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
November 02, 2024, 12:39:49 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Donate

We Appreciate Your Support

Members
Stats
  • Total Posts: 1717701
  • Total Topics: 120254
  • Online Today: 421
  • Online Ever: 2235
  • (October 29, 2023, 01:32:45 AM)
Users Online

Recent

Author Topic: The Wargamers Fascination with Ethnicity  (Read 8969 times)

Offline Panzer21

  • Bookworm
  • Posts: 59
    • Blog- Aufkarungsabteilung
Re: The Wargamers Fascination with Ethnicity
« Reply #15 on: October 04, 2024, 02:00:16 PM »
Hmm.

The problem is, do you take what scant evidence there is or ignore it and substitute your own (C21st) views?

I have seen that argument used both ways:

 "Everyone rates the Spartans highly, but at XYZ they performed poorly, so I don't think they should be given A/B/C rating....."

 " this secondary source says Panzer 2 s were used in the SCW" (when it was pointed out there were no authenticated pictures, no documented examples in list of supplied items etc and that it was "unlikely" at best) - "Oh, so you cannot say  for definite they were not there, so I'm going to use it!"

 In every case there's an agenda and the question is really about finding support for an already decided outcome.

As another poster suggested, it's similar to the hypothesis that scythed chariots didn't exist.

The problem with reaching a view and then casting about for evidence to support it, means disregarding or refuting evidence that contradicts your view. Not exactly as objective as possible, is it?
To do so in the ancient world where the evidence is fragmentary at best is not only nonsensical, but dangerous.

That way lies "alternative facts" and conspiracy theories.
I'd also add it smacks of arrogance to assume such things have not been debated before.

To address some of the content. Why is so much made of the Agrainians?(for example)
Because, the little extant source material we have, consistently mentions Alexander selecting them for special missions or to accompany him.
No, we don't know what they were, any more than we do the Hypaspists. They were hardly useless, indeed seem to have been the opposite. Special selection also suggests it.
Other bits are "best guesses" based on what little survives, such as paintings or artifacts.

 You disagree? Fine. To do so without refuting the evidence we DO have, is not likely to convince, let alone simply saying "I disagree".

Neil

Offline Easy E

  • Scatterbrained Genius
  • Posts: 2075
  • Just some guy who does stuff
    • Blood and Spectacles
Re: The Wargamers Fascination with Ethnicity
« Reply #16 on: October 04, 2024, 02:56:16 PM »
Thanks for all the inputs guys.  I appreciate your thoughts which is why I come here.         

It looks like the consensus is if an ethnic group is called out in the ancient sources, we better include them by name in army lists and differentiate them to some degree from other, similar unit types. 

For the record, I am not saying these unit types did not exist and I am not saying they were not considered important by the ancient sources. 
« Last Edit: October 04, 2024, 03:00:21 PM by Easy E »
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing

Offline Rick

  • Librarian
  • Posts: 173
Re: The Wargamers Fascination with Ethnicity
« Reply #17 on: October 12, 2024, 10:33:21 PM »
You forgot to mention the Theban Sacred Band or Cretan archers. Honestly - the arguments I've heard in wargaming circles over what the Theban Sacred Band actually were, whether they were any good and whether they merit any differences from ordinary hoplites have been bitter and stretch back far longer than the Spartan argument.
As to the Spartans - at the Spartans zenith the hoplites of other Greek city states were citizen armies; free men of that city were expected to supply weapons and equipment commensurate with their status/income and were expected fight for their city state - all had 'day jobs' - baker, potter, smith, etc. In contrast the Spartiates were forbidden to have 'day jobs' but were one of the first full time armies - they drilled relentlessly in full armour, being able to maneuvre, wheel, turn and about face on command in ways that we simply don't attribute to phalanxes in wargame rules. They were highly trained, highly disciplined and well motivated; against other Greek phalanxes they were usually victorious and only defeated by exploiting their weakness to psiloi in close terrain.
Do the Spartans deserve special rules? Possibly - alternatively, most citizen hoplite's are rated too highly in comparison. I will repeat though - this is at the height of Lacedemonion power and influence.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2024, 10:35:58 PM by Rick »

Offline cadbren

  • Librarian
  • Posts: 168
Re: The Wargamers Fascination with Ethnicity
« Reply #18 on: October 13, 2024, 02:30:30 AM »

Do the Spartans deserve special rules? Possibly - .... I will repeat though - this is at the height of Lacedemonion power and influence.
That Spartan hegemonic period covers over 200 years of history though. The whole Napoleonic period is less than 20 years and WWII is only six.

Not sure that's entirely helpful though as players are free to pit a Spartan army at its height against say Caesar or Arminius.

Offline carlos marighela

  • Elder God
  • Posts: 11492
  • Flamenguista até morrer.
Re: The Wargamers Fascination with Ethnicity
« Reply #19 on: October 13, 2024, 05:04:12 AM »
It's probably worth noting that wargamers aren't the only people to harbour notions of martial prowess being somehow linked to ethnicity.

In British India there was a widespread conceit that the more northerly Presidencies produced better fighting troops, favouring Bengalis and Sikhs over troops from say Madras. Aligned with higher levels of technical skill and education meant that a higher portion of Madras troops were formed as pioneers. This theory of martial prowess linked to ethnicity doesn't always hold up to scrutiny.

In both World Wars the racially segregated US Army placed the bulk of what it described as 'coloured troops' into non-combat roles and services. It did this in spite of the experience with African American units on the southern border and did so primarily as part of the racial politics of the US. The poor performance of some African American combat units was often a case of low expectation being matched with low priority in terms of leadership and resourcing, a self-fulfilling prophecy, if you will. If you treat people like shite don't expect them to shine for you. Of course there are magnificent examples of African American troops in both combat and comabt support units functioning magnificently despite their overall treatment by the US Army.

On the other hand you have the example of the 28th (Maori) Battalion of the New Zealand Army in WW2. It's combat record is legendary and borne out by the fact it was the most decorated combat unit in the New Zealand Army.

The impact of ethnicity seems to be in the eye of the beholder. Judging by recent history, it seems to have far more to do with the essentials of leadership, esprit de corps and unit cohesion, factors that ultimately are independent of race or ethnicity but may, in given circumstances, reinforce those factors.
Em dezembro de '81
Botou os ingleses na roda
3 a 0 no Liverpool
Ficou marcado na história
E no Rio não tem outro igual
Só o Flamengo é campeão mundial
E agora seu povo
Pede o mundo de novo

Offline Pattus Magnus

  • Scatterbrained Genius
  • Posts: 2537
Re: The Wargamers Fascination with Ethnicity
« Reply #20 on: October 13, 2024, 06:16:51 AM »
One important thing to keep in mind here is what is meant by “ethnicity”. In day to day speech (and journalism) it had come to be used as a replacement for what used to be called “race”, but that’s not actually what ethnicity is, at least in an anthropological sense. Race has been used in inconsistent ways, but it’s generally based on stereotyped physical traits. Ethnicity may have a physical aspect in relation to specific groups, but it is primarily about differences in stereotypical cultural/ behavioural traits. So, a race could have dozens of ethnic groups in it (ex. NW European), and ethnic identity can be fairly fluid, depending on the situation.

As it’s used in this thread, Spartans could be considered an ethnic group, but are probably more accurately described as a political unit (their ethnicity overlaps with the other Dorian peoples in the Peloponnesus). Numidians, maybe not (they were Berber peoples with many tribes and probably didn’t see themselves as a unified group…). The Theban sacred band wasn’t an “ethnic” unit, it was a specific institution in the Theban polis.

Not that any of this matters for wargaming. The key thing is that some groups at specific points in time used practices that produced better (or worse) military performance by their soldiers. It’s not really about their “ethnic” identity but about the practical activities the people used (training, tactical or strategic ideas, organization, beliefs/ideology).

Offline Rick

  • Librarian
  • Posts: 173
Re: The Wargamers Fascination with Ethnicity
« Reply #21 on: October 13, 2024, 12:39:48 PM »
I would say it's far more about the cultural identity than ethnicity - something that probably still holds true today when people talk about 'race' when they should be referring to a cultural identity.

Offline cadbren

  • Librarian
  • Posts: 168
Re: The Wargamers Fascination with Ethnicity
« Reply #22 on: October 14, 2024, 07:34:39 AM »
I would say it's far more about the cultural identity than ethnicity - something that probably still holds true today when people talk about 'race' when they should be referring to a cultural identity.
Two different things but in the UK ethnic was traditionally used to mean race or at least non-white. There was also a time when race meant nationality so people would talk of the German race or the French race and try and link certain behaviours to those.

In any case we're talking about the ancient world where ethnicity is referring to nationality which might be a kingdom, a tribe or a city. I'm still not sure of the point of the original question as it seems like asking Napoleonic Wars players why they're so fascinated with various regiments when the regiments are what make up the armies. If you don't care about what the regiments were or who made them up and how they differed why are you playing that time period in the first place? Ditto for ancient units.

Offline Maxromek

  • Librarian
  • Posts: 166
Re: The Wargamers Fascination with Ethnicity
« Reply #23 on: October 14, 2024, 01:01:11 PM »
I think that there are several good reasons to differentiate these kind of troops and a lot of people mentioned these above, but to me these are:

1) Oftentimes they were noted contemporarily for being better than expected norm, so there is a good authenticity basis for it.
2) Differentiation and variety can improve gameplay (but also can slow things down and complicate them if doen too much), so there is a good gaming basis for it.
3) Quite often these troops come from ethnicities and regions that otherwise have very little interest put into it. Having them differentaited sheds some light into the history of less-recognized people, so there is a good historical basis for it.

Regarding the "but Spartans also did badly at the Battle of XYZ" argument - that's kind of already taken into account in most wargames, it's the random chance. I don't think anybody is arguing that Spartans were an unbeatable force, it's just all about "expectation over average".

Offline Easy E

  • Scatterbrained Genius
  • Posts: 2075
  • Just some guy who does stuff
    • Blood and Spectacles
Re: The Wargamers Fascination with Ethnicity
« Reply #24 on: October 14, 2024, 03:11:02 PM »
Yes, Nationality is probably a better way to think about it but that word was escaping me when creating the thread!   lol lol lol

Thanks for all the insights on this.

Offline Galtisant

  • Assistant
  • Posts: 29
Re: The Wargamers Fascination with Ethnicity
« Reply #25 on: October 15, 2024, 01:28:43 PM »
For me, one of the key advantages of having soldiers from different countries or regions is that they present an interesting change of scene when painting the figures. For example, when preparing a French army, painting a Swiss battalion in their red coats can make a refreshing change. Similarly in a New Kingdom Egyptian army, the Sherden Guards look completely different from the other Egyptian troops.

Offline Easy E

  • Scatterbrained Genius
  • Posts: 2075
  • Just some guy who does stuff
    • Blood and Spectacles
Re: The Wargamers Fascination with Ethnicity
« Reply #26 on: October 15, 2024, 03:27:03 PM »
Yes, that makes total sense to me. 

My question is do the Swiss need different rules than the French units that do the same thing? Or is painting them different "enough"? 

Offline ithoriel

  • Scientist
  • Posts: 472
Re: The Wargamers Fascination with Ethnicity
« Reply #27 on: October 15, 2024, 04:26:38 PM »
Yes, that makes total sense to me. 

My question is do the Swiss need different rules than the French units that do the same thing? Or is painting them different "enough"?

My answer is that they need different rules because both they and their adversaries believed them to be  something different. If you believe your opponent is something special and you are not you are half way to defeat.
There are 100 types of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who can work from incomplete data.

Offline Easy E

  • Scatterbrained Genius
  • Posts: 2075
  • Just some guy who does stuff
    • Blood and Spectacles
Re: The Wargamers Fascination with Ethnicity
« Reply #28 on: October 15, 2024, 04:54:45 PM »
Is there a battle scale where that does not apply?  I.e. skirmish, unit-vs-unit, big battle, to Grand Strategy?


Offline Rick

  • Librarian
  • Posts: 173
Re: The Wargamers Fascination with Ethnicity
« Reply #29 on: October 15, 2024, 05:07:28 PM »
Indeed. On the Spartan theme, there was a big difference between the Spartiate, who were full-time professionals, and the other Lacedemonians, who had day jobs and were not much better than citizen soldiers of other states. The Spartiate, at their height, numbered around 6,000 in about 12 lochoi, dwindling to a mere 1,000 in 4 smaller lochoi later. This is out of a total population of about 40,000-50,000 inhabitants (estimated, including slaves and non Spartans) dwindling to maybe 30-35,000.
Even at their height, the Spartiate were not a national identity but an elite, professional force within a potentially larger national army.

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
1411 Views
Last post January 19, 2012, 12:00:54 AM
by Dr.Falkenhayn
7 Replies
2869 Views
Last post April 23, 2015, 03:00:05 AM
by Chambersofminiatures
16 Replies
5389 Views
Last post May 30, 2015, 11:08:11 PM
by fastolfrus
36 Replies
3915 Views
Last post October 28, 2020, 08:13:50 PM
by Rich H
4 Replies
1356 Views
Last post May 01, 2023, 08:39:24 PM
by bluewillow