A Question of Historical Wargaming: 'Ok, Who Wants to be The Bad Guys?'

I'm feeling a little introspective lately. This is what comes from having a bit of vacation time to laze about, catch up on some reading and generally navel gaze. As an odd combination, I've been following the faltering Mladic war crimes trial from the Hague, finishing Nial Ferguson's 'The Pity of War' and reading several sets of modern wargame rules, all of which has set me to thinking about our hobby.

....



I believe we often view our hobby as just that: a relatively benign past-time in which we collect miniatures, painstakingly paint them and then array them in tabletop battles. Many of us feel that there is an almost H.G. Wells inspired, quasi-Victorian purity to it all, especially if the periods of interest are colourful and morally two-dimensional. Periods such as ancient Rome, the Hundred Years War and the Napoleonic era are often perceived as somehow quasi academic and having a quaint gentleman's club aesthetic about them. 

An artists rendition of  an early wargame in the spirit of 'Little Wars' by H.G. Wells

Nonetheless, in the past few years there has been a growing interest to game more contemporary conflicts (i.e. ultra modern fighting in the Middle East, Africa and Afghanistan) and this has led me to thinking about the combatants, their motivations and how we as wargamers portray them. From my observation it seems that these conflicts generate a definite sense of a 'good' side and 'bad' side. 

This is well and fine, but what makes them 'good' or 'bad'? Is it that distinct or is it based on perception? And what of gaming the 'bad guys'? Do you feel uncomfortable making a 'game' that may feature forces such as the Taleban? The IRA? How about the child soldiers of Sierra Leone's 'West Side Boys'? Perhaps its not that big of a deal for you? Do they simply serve as an OPFOR to your NATO/Brits/Americans? To be clear, I'm not judging, I'm just curious. As for myself, I'm somewhat conflicted about it. I have a fascination of the tactics and the historical context, but an unease of 'playing' the darker core elements of these struggles - can the tactics and the characteristics be separated from one another, or are they intrinsic in that they all play a role describing the conflict? 

Lacking Comfortable Clarity: An African Boy Soldier and a target from a Predator Drone. In looking at these two images are the subjects villains or victims? Without context its very difficult to determine.

On one level perhaps it is the vicious ideology that drives many modern 'brushfire' wars which often makes them so repugnant to some. Many gamers like to stick to high intensity, state-vs-state conflicts where, while often bloody, nothing is really personal and the motivations seem notional or distant. It seems that once you introduce things such as ethnicity, racism, religious fundamentalism, etc. then some people begin to shift uncomfortably in their seats. These conflicts are often perceived as unpalatable as they do not stem from a political or nation-state struggle, but instead are fuelled by passions that often cannot be cleanly reasoned or be easily understood.

I certainly believe that the more contemporary the subject the more likely it may be considered distasteful or too-close-for-comfort for many. I distinctly remember as a teen in the early 80s that I would not dream of discussing my interests in WWII wargaming with any of the veterans in my home town. It was simply not thought as proper to make a game of what those in the community may have suffered through. Nonetheless, as that generation of veterans sadly passes into time the ease and willingness to game the Second World War has increased - exhibited by the success of games such as 'Flames of War' with their attendent tournaments and impressive breadth and depth of miniatures and player support.  

In this light I think 'time does heal all' in that history often has a certain 'levelling' effect with the ideology, morality and politics of warfare. With many earlier historical periods it seems that neither side can be considered being what we would consider as the definitive 'bad-guys'. Was Rome or Carthage 'good' or 'bad'? Were either the Royalists or the Roundheads essentially evil? I'm sure their various merits/shortcomings were hotly debated at the time, but today it all seems rather academic, with the arguments often being no more than tongue-in-cheek sparing. Except for their uniforms, the actors of these conflicts are perceived as being much the same, with neither having a significant moral high-ground, and so can be gamed with an easy conscience.

The Lens of Time: AWI Yankees and a Viet Cong soldier: either of these images could be perceived as depicting patriots or terrorists, 'hated enemy' or 'heroic defender', depending on place in time and the partiality of the viewer. 

Nevertheless, I think historical wargamers often like to compartmentalize or perhaps sanitize our thinking of what we're actually doing. We often don't think (or choose not to) about any of the uncomfortable aspects of the periods we reconstruct. For example, while many love playing the hard-fighting Confederates in the American Civil War (I certainly do) we often don't reflect on why they were fighting in the first place. While it is commonly understood that one of the primary reasons the American South seceded was for matters of states rights, they also wished to break with the Union in a desire to preserve a distinct way of life. A way of life that was fundamentally built upon the tacit acceptance and promotion of slavery.  In another vein, and reflecting on my previous comments on the Second World War, those who love the advanced equipment and elite status of Waffen SS formations often don't wish to consider the extremely disturbing and morally bankrupt ideological core that drove that organization.

I know, I know, I should get a hobby. Nevertheless I believe these are important questions that should challenge us. Am I going to sell off my wargaming collection and don a hair shirt of contrition? Of course not. This IS a hobby, its a great form of distraction and the misanthrope in me likes to think that to play these games is a form of education, outlining our collective march of folly. This all being said, I think that from time to time we may want to take a step back from wargaming's obvious entertainment and consider not only the cost of blood, spirit and treasure that these conflicts demand but also the motivations of the antagonists. In fact it may be interesting to incorporate some of these complexities into the design of our scenarios - it might well add greater depth and context to what we do. All grist for the mill...