It's been a long time, but I came back to playing The Prince: The Struggle of the House Borgia (sold as Borgia in the Netherlands) last week. The Italian renaissance has a strong attraction to game designers, it combines economic growth with art and architecture and intellectual growth. Princes of Florence, La Citta, Fresco, Leonardo Da Vinci and Medici are just some examples of games combining these elements. And that is ignoring all the games covering the exploration of the world in the same period.
But there's another side to the renaissance that attracts designers and that's the Machiavellian politics. When you want a game that has conflict and backstabbing as well as the above, the exploits of the condottiere and scheming of the renaissance popes offer a good background.
Not for nothing one of the games that takes this approach is named after the Florentine politician and philosopher. But there's others as well: Martin Wallace's Princes of the Renaissance and Borgia. While Machiavelli is a more detailed version of Diplomacy, the latter two games leave the physical map and use cards and counters to portray the expansion of power.
Borgia is the less complex of the latter two games. It plays in three phases where auctioning resource and action cards and attacking each other's resources make up the player's turns. The attacks can always be made on unprotected resources, ie they are not combined with a city. Otherwise it needs playing a condottiere card. They can be defended by playing condottiere cards as well.
The phase ends when all available cards have been auctioned. Then income is gathered and a papal election held, followed by a point tally. The points come from cities, famous artists and being chosen pope.
What proved interesting is that you can have a fun game threatening other players by attacking unprotected resource cards and then not play a condottiere card, hoping that the other player plays one, effectively wasting it. The downside is that you waste one of your limited actions and get nothing in return.
It became a very close run game in the end, with me losing by 151 to 147 points. I managed to take out a very valuable artist from my rival by stealing the medicine card of him first and then playing my plague card.
But he saved his victory by good defensive pairing of his stronger but less valuable cities to his artists and his weaker but more valuable cities to independent families that increased the defensive value. That meant that my condottiere cards were too weak to take them on and sway the game my way,
A sturdy game, but nothing can change my love for Princes of the Renaissance. Not even the fact that I suck at bidding games.
Showing posts with label review. Show all posts
Showing posts with label review. Show all posts
Monday, 19 December 2016
Sunday, 20 November 2016
Israel Divided. Or Not?
Last weekend I was struck with a heavy bout of influenza which caused me to cancel a few appointments. It gave me some extra time to read and I decided to finish off Jona Lendering’s Israel Verdeeld (or Israel Divided).
The history of Israel and Jewish religion in the age of Jesus tickled memories of my past, growing up in the Dutch reformed church, while I follow Jona Lendering’s blog on ancient history and had enjoyed one of his previous books.
One of the first points to tackle is of course that Lendering assumes that Jesus actually did exist. Given that there are several independent, non-biblical sources that confirm his existence, I think that’s a fair point. But as Lendering argues, who he was and what he preached, is very hard to reconstruct because of the limits of the sources.
And this is where Lendering comes into his own as he explains how we can weigh the evidence, for example by rejecting facts that are only mentioned in one source, or which might have been added in later versions. Similar discussions pop up all over the book, whether discussing the actual theological differences between Jewish substreams or the power of priestly dynasties.
Lendering also describes how Jewish religion was divided over the interpretation of the halacha, the rules to live life. There were differences of opinion on such diverse topics as which texts were relevant (just the core books of the bible, or also the books of the prophets, and non-bible traditions?), on the relationship towards non-Jews, the afterlife and the limits to free will. There is ample proof of a lively debate that seems to have resonated deeply with those involved.
But the most important thing to take away is that fundamentally all Jews adhered to the sacrifice in the great temple of Jerusalem, and large parts of the halacha were devoted to the correct performance of the sacrifice.
A part that doesn’t seem so important is that of messianism. There wasn’t a feeling of the end of time and of the coming of the messiah, and apparently was not discussed much. Which doesn’t mean that there weren’t several people claiming to be the messiah before and after Jesus. But the messianist message in combination with an end of time revelation was typical of the Jesus’ strand of Jewish religion.
And this is what Lendering is quite clear on: Jesus was a Jew, who talked about issues that were relevant to the Jews of his age (mostly about the halachic rules) and in ways that they would recognise. The rejection of the halacha was a later development in Christianity.
What had changed fundamentally by then, was the Jewish religion. The destruction of the great temple (during the Jewish Revolt of 66-73 AD) meant that it could no longer be organized around the sacrifice. Also, several religious branches seem to have disappeared after 70 AD, and the Farizee branch transformed into the Rabbinic brand of Jewish religion that we recognize today.
In the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD both Jewish and Christian both started to codify their dogmas and select which holy books were relevant or not. The situation where different interpretations of the same religion could live side by side was slowly disappearing. The process of separation was reinforced by Roman taxation of Jews, which forced Christians to choose. By the time Christianity had become the state religion of the Empire the divide had become deep, and religious anti-Semitism was creeping into the Catholic Church.
But as far as I am concerned the book is not easily accessible to a broader public. Lendering’s insistence to explain his method in detail on every occasion get’s tiring after some time. Even an interested reader like me dropped the book two thirds in, and left it for a couple of months. I might never have picked it up again.
For some reason I didn’t have the same problem with At the Edge of the World, the book that Lendering wrote together with Arjen Bosman on the Roman Empire in the Low Countries. I can’t lay my finger on what exactly is the difference between the two books, but perhaps Lendering on his own takes it all just a bit too serious.
To capture the imagination of readers, solid methods and arguments are not enough. A delicate balance needs to be struck between scientific rigour and readability. That is incredibly hard to do, and there's no dishonour in failing. On the contrary, Lendering should be commended for trying and his example should be followed.
The history of Israel and Jewish religion in the age of Jesus tickled memories of my past, growing up in the Dutch reformed church, while I follow Jona Lendering’s blog on ancient history and had enjoyed one of his previous books.
One of the first points to tackle is of course that Lendering assumes that Jesus actually did exist. Given that there are several independent, non-biblical sources that confirm his existence, I think that’s a fair point. But as Lendering argues, who he was and what he preached, is very hard to reconstruct because of the limits of the sources.
And this is where Lendering comes into his own as he explains how we can weigh the evidence, for example by rejecting facts that are only mentioned in one source, or which might have been added in later versions. Similar discussions pop up all over the book, whether discussing the actual theological differences between Jewish substreams or the power of priestly dynasties.
Israel in the time of Jesus
Politically the period was determined by the slow movement from the Seleucid to the Roman sphere of influence, until it became a Roman province during Jesus’ lifetime. At the same time, Jewish political and religious elites lost legitimacy as they got caught up in the power struggle and sometimes ended up on the losing side. Warfare also increased the tax pressure.Lendering also describes how Jewish religion was divided over the interpretation of the halacha, the rules to live life. There were differences of opinion on such diverse topics as which texts were relevant (just the core books of the bible, or also the books of the prophets, and non-bible traditions?), on the relationship towards non-Jews, the afterlife and the limits to free will. There is ample proof of a lively debate that seems to have resonated deeply with those involved.
But the most important thing to take away is that fundamentally all Jews adhered to the sacrifice in the great temple of Jerusalem, and large parts of the halacha were devoted to the correct performance of the sacrifice.
A part that doesn’t seem so important is that of messianism. There wasn’t a feeling of the end of time and of the coming of the messiah, and apparently was not discussed much. Which doesn’t mean that there weren’t several people claiming to be the messiah before and after Jesus. But the messianist message in combination with an end of time revelation was typical of the Jesus’ strand of Jewish religion.
And this is what Lendering is quite clear on: Jesus was a Jew, who talked about issues that were relevant to the Jews of his age (mostly about the halachic rules) and in ways that they would recognise. The rejection of the halacha was a later development in Christianity.
Christianity as a separate religion
Essentially, the legacy that Jesus left fitted as well within Jewish religion as any of the other branches. Lendering shows that the parting of the ways was a protracted affair and that many Christians kept to the halacha (or a special variant for those that hadn’t been born as Jews) and visited Jewish temples hundreds of years later.What had changed fundamentally by then, was the Jewish religion. The destruction of the great temple (during the Jewish Revolt of 66-73 AD) meant that it could no longer be organized around the sacrifice. Also, several religious branches seem to have disappeared after 70 AD, and the Farizee branch transformed into the Rabbinic brand of Jewish religion that we recognize today.
In the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD both Jewish and Christian both started to codify their dogmas and select which holy books were relevant or not. The situation where different interpretations of the same religion could live side by side was slowly disappearing. The process of separation was reinforced by Roman taxation of Jews, which forced Christians to choose. By the time Christianity had become the state religion of the Empire the divide had become deep, and religious anti-Semitism was creeping into the Catholic Church.
Lendering’s mission
Lendering succeeds admirably in drawing these developments in an understandable way, while staying true to the sources. But on a more fundamental level, the book doesn’t succeed. Lendering has spoken out repeatedly that ancient history (and archeology) should be made accessible to a broader public.But as far as I am concerned the book is not easily accessible to a broader public. Lendering’s insistence to explain his method in detail on every occasion get’s tiring after some time. Even an interested reader like me dropped the book two thirds in, and left it for a couple of months. I might never have picked it up again.
For some reason I didn’t have the same problem with At the Edge of the World, the book that Lendering wrote together with Arjen Bosman on the Roman Empire in the Low Countries. I can’t lay my finger on what exactly is the difference between the two books, but perhaps Lendering on his own takes it all just a bit too serious.
To capture the imagination of readers, solid methods and arguments are not enough. A delicate balance needs to be struck between scientific rigour and readability. That is incredibly hard to do, and there's no dishonour in failing. On the contrary, Lendering should be commended for trying and his example should be followed.
Saturday, 12 November 2016
No better way to read my mind
Than to watch my recent acquisitions. I'd saved up quite a few book coupons which now have been turned into paper (and some digital books). So what's come in recently?
Also in is the new book by Paul Dawson, a very thorough researcher who has done a lot of work in French archives on French cavalry of the Napoleonic Wars. This book is no change to his previous work in that it focusses on composition of units, replacement horses and logistics over tactics and individual actions. Therefor it is a very valuable companion to most other studies, who tend to focus on the latter.
Remy Limpach, De brandende kampongs van Generaal Spoor
A book's just come out on Dutch atrocities during the Indonesian War of Independence (1945-1949).This has had a considerable impact because these have been dismissed in the 1960s as incidents and this author shows that retributions against the population were widespread, even if not part of policy. It also becomes clear that these occurrences were brought to the attention of higher ranks who actively suppressed the facts. If anybody was still under the impression that Dutch colonial rule was somehow more benevolent than of its contemporaries, that can now be dismissed.
Paul Dawson, Crippled splendour. The French cavalry from Valmy to Toulouse
Also in is the new book by Paul Dawson, a very thorough researcher who has done a lot of work in French archives on French cavalry of the Napoleonic Wars. This book is no change to his previous work in that it focusses on composition of units, replacement horses and logistics over tactics and individual actions. Therefor it is a very valuable companion to most other studies, who tend to focus on the latter.Pat Harrigan & Matthew Kirschenbau, Zones of Control, Perspectives on Wargaming
Something of a handbook on (war)game design. It has contributions by well known designers such as Peter Perla, Phil Sabin, Brian Train and Joe Miranda. It ranges from historical background to views of the future (but not so much on computer gaming) and from deadly serious gaming for defense to card-driven commercial games to Warhammer 40K. It also includes a chapter on cultural wargaming by Jim Wallman, my favourite game designer, which outlines how games can help bring up unspoken assumptions and behaviour and create discussion about them. Valuable background to a serious study of state of the art wargaming.
James Waterson, Defending Heaven, China's Mongol Wars 1209-1370
An appealing book I picked up at Crisis about the Mongol conquest and loss of China. Waterson thinks the Mongol conquest created the present borders of China (except, notably, Mongolia itself) but also, that it never succeeded in making a mark culturally. Although the Song dynasty in south China was finally defeated, its legacy was the basis for the eventual evictions of the descendants of the great Khans.
Also in (but not dug in as deep yet):
- Colin Galloway, The American Revolution in Indian Country
- Edward Erickson, Ottoman Army Effectiveness in World War I
- Chris Tyerman, How To Plan a Crusade
- Colin Galloway, The Shawnees and the War for America
Saturday, 25 October 2014
Review: De Adelaar En Het Lam: Onrust, Opruiing En Onwilligheid In Nederland Ten Tijde Van Het Koninkrijk Holland En De Inlijving Bij Het Franse Keizerrijk
De Adelaar En Het Lam: Onrust, Opruiing En Onwilligheid In Nederland Ten Tijde Van Het Koninkrijk Holland En De Inlijving Bij Het Franse Keizerrijk by Johan Joor
My rating: 5 of 5 stars
Joor looks at the level of civil unrest in the Kingdom of Holland (1806-10) and the 'Dutch' departments of the French Empire (1810-13). He shows that it was pretty high by European standards (despite never reaching full scale armed revolt such as in Spain or Southern Italy) and by Dutch standards of the 17th and 18th centuries. This contradicts earlier books that assumed resistance to French and French backed authority was low.
The highest levels were recorded in 1809 and 1813, with higher levels from 1810-13 than before. Most important source of unrest was military service, followed by tax and smuggling and general opposition to French or French-backed authority. Religious and civilian disputes were rarely behind large scale unrest.
In terms of participants and modes of protest, there is strong continuity with 18th century forms of unrest. Mostly lower middle class craftsmen and farmers (rather than urban and rural poor), a high participation of women and mostly very local and disciplined. Where the protest were non-traditional was in their opposition to expanding role and power of the state (conscription, taxation).
Excellent, based on extensive research of primary sources. Includes lots of case studies, background information on policies, and on the means at the disposal of the authorities to deal with unrest.
View all my reviews
Monday, 13 October 2014
Review: German Infantryman vs Soviet Rifleman – Barbarossa 1941

German Infantryman vs Soviet Rifleman – Barbarossa 1941 by David Campbell
My rating: 4 of 5 stars
Describes the fighting of German an Soviet troops in the opening stages of Operation Barbarossa, so a combination of first line Soviet troops and the new armies that were hastily thrown into battle in July.
There's a lot of Glantz but not much in terms of accounts by Soviet participants, which would have been a great boon in understanding what it was like for Russian soldiers.
The choice to show three encounters from this early phase of Barbarossa can be defended although I think a comparison of fighting in June/July, August/September and October-December would have better shown the development of fighting capabilities of the Wehrmacht and Red Army over time.
I guess the Combat series is picking up for me, but it has not reached its potential.
View all my reviews
Friday, 10 October 2014
Review: The Autobiography of FBI Special Agent Dale Cooper

The Autobiography of FBI Special Agent Dale Cooper by Scott Frost
My rating: 4 of 5 stars
With the return of Twin Peaks to the screen I could help picking this one off the shelf. Ranging from the weird to the hilarious. How can we not be interested in how Dale Cooper came to find his strong mental powers, when he first discovered coffee and pie, the letter he received from J. Edgar Hoover, how he lost his cherry or how he met Windom Earle?
Some of the stuff on the Teresa Banks murder conflicts with what happens in Fire Walk With Me, but small beef.
View all my reviews
Wednesday, 18 June 2014
Tell Me: Should I Review For Osprey?
A few weeks ago, Osprey advertised they are seeking bloggers and reviewers that wish to receive Osprey books to review.
I guess I would be qualified (by their not too demanding standards) because I already read lots of Ospreys and have published over a dozen reviews on this blog and commented on a bunch more on Goodreads. What makes it an extremely tempting offer is that the coming months will see quite a few interesting volumes, from Malplaquet to Quatre Bras and Waterloo (not a very great distance in Euclidian space).
There might be a point of being forced to read books that I wouldn't read otherwise, but I think I could get over that.
The biggest issue is of course whether I can maintain my independent opinion in the face of receiving free books. I would be open about which books I have received for free, of course. But warning your audience is not always enough.
I have been quite critical of some Osprey publications, especially its anglocentrism and I think I would continue to be, but it might dull my edge. In fact, my critical approach might also be a reason for Osprey not to send me any books, but that would be a telling decision on what it seeks to achieve. For that reason, it would be interesting just to try.
But I'd like to know what you think. How do you approach reviews where you know the author has received a free copy? Would it also affect what you think of reviews that were written about books I paid for? And do you think I should let myself in with this at all?
I guess I would be qualified (by their not too demanding standards) because I already read lots of Ospreys and have published over a dozen reviews on this blog and commented on a bunch more on Goodreads. What makes it an extremely tempting offer is that the coming months will see quite a few interesting volumes, from Malplaquet to Quatre Bras and Waterloo (not a very great distance in Euclidian space).
There might be a point of being forced to read books that I wouldn't read otherwise, but I think I could get over that.
The biggest issue is of course whether I can maintain my independent opinion in the face of receiving free books. I would be open about which books I have received for free, of course. But warning your audience is not always enough.
I have been quite critical of some Osprey publications, especially its anglocentrism and I think I would continue to be, but it might dull my edge. In fact, my critical approach might also be a reason for Osprey not to send me any books, but that would be a telling decision on what it seeks to achieve. For that reason, it would be interesting just to try.
But I'd like to know what you think. How do you approach reviews where you know the author has received a free copy? Would it also affect what you think of reviews that were written about books I paid for? And do you think I should let myself in with this at all?
Thursday, 29 May 2014
Review: Europe Under Napoleon 1799-1815

Europe Under Napoleon 1799-1815 by Michael Broers
My rating: 5 of 5 stars
What a great book! Broers offers an overview of Napoleonic Europe, bringing together the experiences from the coasts of the Baltic via the North Sea, the Atlantic and the Mediterranean to the Illyrian.
This is not a book about Napoleon, but about the international system he built out of the revolutionary inheritance. While the first expansion of the French empire had been mostly a result of revolutionary conquest and sister republics, the superiority of French arms between 1800 and 1812 brought new areas into imperial orbit. From 1806 the economic blockade against Great Britain became a driving force behind expansion.
The empire is not so much described as a political unit but as a system of political control in which the relation to the Napoleonic state was determined by the level to which the area was able to produce administrative results: conscripts, taxes and economic blockade of British goods. If the results disappointed, Paris increased control. So while the reforming south German states retained their independence, the Batavian Republic was put under ever closer oversight.
Local elites were forced to choose between collaboration and resistance. The empire offered benefits to its subjects, the most important being public order and equity before the law. Napoleon offered the inclusion of the local elites in his system administration. In easily accessible areas these factors proved powerful enough by themselves to obtain collaboration of the notables.
But there were inherent contradictions in the empire. The economic blockade destroyed many coastal areas. The burden of conscription was felt to be greater than the benefits that the empire brought. In areas where the struggle against the catholic church was unpopular and the terrain offered deserters, smugglers and bandits enough room to evade the marechausées, the imperial hold was strenuous.
The inner empire was not synonymous with France. Western France delivered lower numbers of conscripts than the western bank of the Rhine and Northern Italy.
View all my reviews
Labels:
books,
history,
Napoleonics,
review
Sunday, 25 May 2014
Review: Blücher: Scourge of Napoleon

Blücher: Scourge of Napoleon by Michael V. Leggiere
My rating: 5 of 5 stars
Probably now the best account of Blücher's life as a commander in English. It didn't shock my view of Blücher after reading Henderson and some other stuff. Blücher was not the charging madman he has sometimes been made to be, but a rational and aggressive commander. Although his great strength lay in the maintenance of the ultimate objective (defeating Napoleon decisively on the battlefield) and inspiration of the men under his command he was clearly more involved in the running of the army than his detractors have suggested.
Driven by his sense of personal pride and urge to show that he loved the Prussian king more than the Prussians he was often more hurt by suggestions of disloyalty on his side or royal disfavour than loss on the battlefield. However, it seems he sought death on the battlefield at Vauchamps at the end of the disastrous week when Napoleon beat his dispersed corps 4 times in 6 days.
Strategically he showed his best during the fall campaign of 1813, when he managed to occupy Napoleon by keeping in close touch and reading his opponents actions well. His pursuit of MacDonald after the Katzbach forced Napoleon to break off the pursuit of the Army of Bohemia and prevented the emperor from moving against Berlin. His move to unite with Bernadotte´s Army of the North was the decisive move of the campaign, but his choice to evade Napoleon by crossing the Saale was of similar brilliance.
In all these cases the question is of course whether the genius was his or Gneisenau´s. To me it appears that Blücher's letters show enough comprehension of the siutation to suggest that he was heavily involved in the decisions. As his moves during 1814 and 1815 show, he was not afraid to try the unconventional, and this seems to have confounded Napoleon.
As one of the few allied commanders not afraid to take on the French emperor himself and because of his ability to draw others along he is probably the single most important military commander on the allied side in the defeat of Napoleon after 1812.
In his personal life he showed many traits of the 'hussar' lifestyle, but he was also a committed husband and father. Leggiere stressed that he also wasn't an uneducated boor, but that the connections made during his period outside the army and especially with the Freemasons, made him socially flexible.
Hats of to Leggiere for this great work, but I think I would have preferred if he had finished his account of the 1814 campaign first.
View all my reviews
Monday, 31 March 2014
Review: Yorck and the Era of Prussian Reform, 1807-1815
Yorck and the Era of Prussian Reform, 1807-1815 by Peter Paret
My rating: 5 of 5 stars
Great book on the Prussian reforms before and after Jena-Auerstädt. Shows that it was not just a case of noble and visionary reformers vs dumb reactionaries, but a struggle in which military theories and practice were linked to but also conflicted with legal privileges, social attitudes and personal rivalries.
Considering the opposition it is amazing how much was achieved and one wonders what might have happened if Scharnhorst hadn´t died so young and peace hadn´t come so soon. In any case, the reforms turned the Prussian army from a laggard into a front runner, despite the rough edges.
Yorck´s role in all of this is much more interesting than many historians have it (and that includes recent historians who have simply repeated the myths of the past). Yorck was in many ways closer to the reformers than most, looking at his practice as a commander of the Jäger and the infantry regulations and training programmes he helped to write. On the other hand, he was quite aware that the consequences of the social change not only undermined his status and legitimacy as a noble, but thereby also that of other institutions. And he was a pain in the arse to work with.
All this lovingly analysed and extensively researched by the author.
View all my reviews
Monday, 25 November 2013
Working class hero
I probably would never have known about this book had Jerry not asked me to buy it for him so he could save on the postage.
Johnny Peters was a working class lad growing up in a tough neighbourhood of Liverpool when the war broke out. Volunteering for the Border regiment in 1941, he became part of the Airlanding Brigade. This led him almost to Sicily as his glider crashed in North Africa. He eventually reached Italy by ship. The trips to Arnhem and Norway were almost as eventful but at least he made it there. This account makes it clear that there were a lot of crashes, aborted flights and scares in the airborne forces. Useful to realise also that Peters only had two short stints of combat (two weeks in mainland Italy and 9 days at Arnhem) in four years of service.
What struck me is that Peters' life was pretty grim in many respects, which makes the hardships of war stand out less. That tough attitude was carried into the army and Peters doesn't polish away his fights with Italians and Canadians and running in with the military hierarchy. It is interesting to see how soldiers managed to scrape a bit of extra income from selling surplus stores and by collecting watches and camera's from POWs.
Similarly, Peters had an eye for the world around him. From his encounters with North African shoe shiners to the shaving of Norwegian women who had fraternised with German soldiers.
One anecdote that stands out for me is how Johnny's father (a veteran of WWI) always refused to wear a poppy because the Veteran's Legion had refused to grant him the money to buy shoes for his son. So although this book may not teach you much about combat operations, it's an occasionally captivating read, showing that our grandparents lives were much more exceptional than we sometimes realise.
The question is why they mostly hid it from us.
Johnny Peters was a working class lad growing up in a tough neighbourhood of Liverpool when the war broke out. Volunteering for the Border regiment in 1941, he became part of the Airlanding Brigade. This led him almost to Sicily as his glider crashed in North Africa. He eventually reached Italy by ship. The trips to Arnhem and Norway were almost as eventful but at least he made it there. This account makes it clear that there were a lot of crashes, aborted flights and scares in the airborne forces. Useful to realise also that Peters only had two short stints of combat (two weeks in mainland Italy and 9 days at Arnhem) in four years of service.
What struck me is that Peters' life was pretty grim in many respects, which makes the hardships of war stand out less. That tough attitude was carried into the army and Peters doesn't polish away his fights with Italians and Canadians and running in with the military hierarchy. It is interesting to see how soldiers managed to scrape a bit of extra income from selling surplus stores and by collecting watches and camera's from POWs.
Similarly, Peters had an eye for the world around him. From his encounters with North African shoe shiners to the shaving of Norwegian women who had fraternised with German soldiers.
One anecdote that stands out for me is how Johnny's father (a veteran of WWI) always refused to wear a poppy because the Veteran's Legion had refused to grant him the money to buy shoes for his son. So although this book may not teach you much about combat operations, it's an occasionally captivating read, showing that our grandparents lives were much more exceptional than we sometimes realise.
The question is why they mostly hid it from us.
Thursday, 7 November 2013
Spiel Essen 2013, part 2: the games I played
Here's the second part of my Essen experiences, consisting of the games I played, so with a little more hard info on the games. Look here for Part 1 and the Polish section is coming up.
Masters of Revenge by Serious Poulp has a cool take on the manoeuvering of martial arts. I liked the numbers on the sides of the cards determining your attack and defence values. This created an interesting dynamic as you moved around looking for a weak spot in your opponent´s defence. Regretfully, it was overpriced. Nevertheless, I will have a look at their 7th Continent kickstarter which is a choose-your-own-adventure-game that uses tiles rather than a book.
Leonardo by Ghenos is a fun light game where you gather resources and build machines by moving one of the three figures around the board. But if you are late in the turn, chances are another has moved that figure first. That makes for an interesting guess, giving you the occasional euphoria of outsmarting your opponents.
Corto got me by the great art work and the direct conflict. There´s character cards and events which allow you to mess with other players tiles and affect the scoring. Scoring is for characters you have killed, groups of characters you control and point particular to a story line. It is really a pretty abstract tile laying game, even if cutthroat, and it irked my friends as it didn’t have a narrative as you would expect from a game about a comic book. But if you don’t care about that bit, this is one of the prizes this year.
Although an older release, I don’t want to leave out Puppet Wars, which we played and enjoyed a lot. The miniatures are brilliant, but require some glue and paint to bring to life. The game plays fast and furious (especially if you put your leader out in front). The basic mechanics are pretty simple, but the special abilities of the dolls (especially the combos) make this a challenge to master. I might just buy it some other time for the heck of it.
| Nate Hayden after a long day explaining his game which sold out quickly |
Nate
Hayden's Mushroom Eaters 3D experience is singular, but the road is the
destination. As you progress on the board through your trip, you face numerous challenges costing you physical and mental strength. This can turn your trip into a bad trip. You have some control over where you land, and you can regain strength at some points or learn mantras to protect yourself, but it just ambles along with us finding out where we were going.
There Are
No Rats In The Wall! We've been Enjoying this unpretentious but effective bluff poker game with a Lovecraftian twist by Henning
Poehl. Perfect for playing in the bar.
| At the end of a game of Warlock |
I had some
fun playing Warlock by Quined, it had some interesting scoring mechanics and
the combination of tile laying and deck building. You have to play cards from your hand to be able to place one in the 4x4 grid before you. Where you place them determines how much they are worth at the end. It's mostly multiplayer solo, although you can destroy other players' cards if they're unprotected (by dragons). Rules were not always
intuitive but Warlock will play smoothly after one game.
| ASiE after a dozen rounds |
In a world where royalty are really the Ancient Ones, revolutionaries and anarchists are also saving the world from the return of Chaos. Your agents roam the cities of Europe to assassinate royals and control resources. As your identity is hidden, the other players don´t know which side you are on and since the game is lost by the side with the player with the fewest points, it becomes abit of a gamble who you attack. It’s great
to see Martin Wallace slowly exploring the possibilities of combining deckbuilders
and boardgames, and it is surprising not more people have latched on to this.
I
love how A Study In Emerald integrates cards and board, theme is fun, but we only played a dozen rounds
or so. Hard to tell yet how good it really is.
| Defence value 7, attack value 6 and because of the double 3, I got another turn |
Masters of Revenge by Serious Poulp has a cool take on the manoeuvering of martial arts. I liked the numbers on the sides of the cards determining your attack and defence values. This created an interesting dynamic as you moved around looking for a weak spot in your opponent´s defence. Regretfully, it was overpriced. Nevertheless, I will have a look at their 7th Continent kickstarter which is a choose-your-own-adventure-game that uses tiles rather than a book.
Leonardo by Ghenos is a fun light game where you gather resources and build machines by moving one of the three figures around the board. But if you are late in the turn, chances are another has moved that figure first. That makes for an interesting guess, giving you the occasional euphoria of outsmarting your opponents.
Corto got me by the great art work and the direct conflict. There´s character cards and events which allow you to mess with other players tiles and affect the scoring. Scoring is for characters you have killed, groups of characters you control and point particular to a story line. It is really a pretty abstract tile laying game, even if cutthroat, and it irked my friends as it didn’t have a narrative as you would expect from a game about a comic book. But if you don’t care about that bit, this is one of the prizes this year.
| Puppets moving out of their spawning points |
Although an older release, I don’t want to leave out Puppet Wars, which we played and enjoyed a lot. The miniatures are brilliant, but require some glue and paint to bring to life. The game plays fast and furious (especially if you put your leader out in front). The basic mechanics are pretty simple, but the special abilities of the dolls (especially the combos) make this a challenge to master. I might just buy it some other time for the heck of it.
Labels:
Ameritrash,
boardgame,
boardgames,
card game,
Essen 2013,
review,
Spiel
Sunday, 27 October 2013
Spiel Essen 2013 part I
Yes! This was a good year to be at Spiel in Essen. Even if there wasn't a great game to swoon about, and even if we had a last minute cancelation (with Douwe as a great substitution) and others were experiencing distractions form real world troubles.
| Well, if you say so... |
The new layout in the three
halls and galleria was an improvement. It felt more spacious even though there
were more people than in previous years (according to the Spiel website).
I must say
I was also pleasantly surprised this year with effort made by most demo people.
The Poles have made a great effort over the past years, but there were more
examples of passionate people trying to win you over. For example the guy at
the La Mame booth who really knew how to sell Coup to me. Rare to see such
enthusiasm. Small designers tend to take all of that burden upon themselves,
but demo people can be worth gold, if only to relieve the pressure.
So, what
about the games? I´ll start
my Essen report
with impressions of the games I didn´t get to play. Next will follow my
experiences of the games we did play. The Polish games will be in a third and
last post.
Some neat
balancing mechanisms in the deck management of Kampen om Norge were explained
to me by one of the designers, who hung around the Spielbär stand. The Germans have to
win 6 victory positions before their deck runs out, while the Norwegians can
reshuffle if they want. The Anglo/French also have a limited deck.
It is only
because I can’t be fooled into buying another 2 player wargame that I didn’t
buy it, but this game genuinely seemed to tackle the most difficult campaign to
wargame: Norway
1940. It combines sea, air and ground troops, in a very big area. It is
probably hideously expensive to order it from Norway . So it will probably never
gain a wider audience. I think that’s a shame.
Concept
from Repos is in the line of guessing games such as Pictionary, but here you
have a board of images that helps you to describe your subject. There are
hardly any rules in the box and very little stuff. It’s just that I am
fascinated by communication between different cultures and the problems of
translating abstract concepts, so I bought it anyway.
My friends
tried Uwe Rosenberg's new game Caverna, and it is mostly an easier, fantasy
version of Agricola. Resources are not so tight.
Canalis
from AEG continues the Tempest series. It is a tactical tile laying game.
Russian
Railroads lacks armoured trains to make it interesting. But then again, I don’t
like train games. If you want armoured trains: buy Corto!
The guy at the Asyncron stand did
a great job explaining l'Aeropostale to me. You run one of the first airline companies to encompass the world in your network of postal and passenger services. Nice theme
& artwork, but would have liked to try it. That might have clinched a
buy.
Hard to
figure out why Madeira was making such an
impact. It looked like the next ‘trade to impress the prince’ game. We couldn't
fit into a table to try it. Probably for the better.
I only had
a quick look at Ace Detective by Richard Launius. The investigation issue is
dealt with by you putting the most clues on the suspect with the most clues at
the end of the game, a mechanism we also saw in Android. The story-telling
aspect is just the optional addition of players rewarding each other for story
telling and this is also a well known mechanism. But both mechanisms have their
weaknesses and didn’t fire me up to come back and find out more.
Had
Suburban Dispute explained to me, and the background story is interesting
enough, but I just couldn’t see it being fun for the full length of the game (2-3
hours)
Seven
Swords (based on the classic Kurosawa movie Seven
Samurai) by Xenos looks good and sounds good. The mechanics are interesting
and seem to create a nice dynamic and tactical options. However, I just fear
that the rulebook will be as badly written as Luna Llena and others from this
company. Guys, get your ffing act
together! You have interesting themes in the Ameritrash genre, but if you can’t
write a decent rulebook I just can’t bring myself to recommend you to others. Bloody
shame!
Labels:
boardgame,
boardgames,
card game,
Essen 2013,
miniatures,
review,
Spiel,
Wargames
Thursday, 10 October 2013
Lupin III
Hard to tell how big an impact childhood TV shows actually have, but I remember a few of them very well. There was Robbi, Tobi en het Frawatuig, De Stratemaker op Zee-Show and later Inspector Gadget. The impact on Pierluigi Frumusa must have been the same for Lupin III, a Japanese cartoon series about the grandson of Arsène Lupin, the French 19th century equivalent of Robin Hood.
Lupin III and his gang, consisting of gun toting Jigen, modern samurai Goemon and vamp/action woman Fujiko, are always intent on pulling off great and improbable heists. At the same time they are pursued by gruff inspector Zenigata, who by force of the plot must always fail.
This gives the game a natural set up of a match between the gang players and the inspector. But the gang contains one weak joint: Fujiko. She has her own agenda and might in some cases decide to keep the prize to herself. The possibility of a three-way stand off gives the game an edge over many other coop games.
The theme is further integrated into the gameplay as all the characters have unique stats and a set of mission cards, which give you different options (like Lupin's penchant for disguises and Fujiko's betrayal). This reinforced by the excellent graphic design and the inclusion of five plastic figures of the main characters is a bonus.
Every game is based on a scenario, drawn from the cartoon series. The original game includes a double sided board for the first two scenarios, the expansion two more. Every scenario comes with a few specific rules as well.
Another feature of the game is that it includes a planning phase, in which the gang decides on the way to execute the heist. They have a limited budget with which to buy equipment, from shovels to guns to paragliders.
Finally there's the limited visibility. As long as they are not in sight, the gang are not on the board, which is why Inspector Zenigata has a challenge on his hands setting up his policemen at the start of the game.
Together, the heist scenarios, planning phase, hidden movement and conflicting goals of the players with unexpected twists in the execution phase make the game feel very much like the cartoon original. I think that´s a major achievement for a designer.
So, what's not to like about Lupin the 3rd, a good looking game dripping with theme and some interesting and rare mechanics? As in other cases (Gen-X, I'm looking at you here) English rules written by non-native speakers are not the easiest to digest. A combination of weak translation and sloppy rules writing leaves considerable gaps and confusion that players need to sort out during the game. Luckily there´s a revised English rulebook and a FAQ to provide some help.
As one of my friends said: rather than not playtesting it enough, they have probably playtested it too much and forgotten how much is assumed in the rules that we're not told about.
The visibility issues also can become problematic, which is why I think playing with an umpire is a good idea, especially when introducing players to the game. Does that diminish the game? I think not. But then I am used to half finished games where umpires and players work with the mechanics and role play rather than try to break it. If you are up for a unique game, brimming with theme, don't let these glitches stop you.
| Basic game and expansion |
This gives the game a natural set up of a match between the gang players and the inspector. But the gang contains one weak joint: Fujiko. She has her own agenda and might in some cases decide to keep the prize to herself. The possibility of a three-way stand off gives the game an edge over many other coop games.
The theme is further integrated into the gameplay as all the characters have unique stats and a set of mission cards, which give you different options (like Lupin's penchant for disguises and Fujiko's betrayal). This reinforced by the excellent graphic design and the inclusion of five plastic figures of the main characters is a bonus.
| Special character cards, and yes: only in Italian |
Another feature of the game is that it includes a planning phase, in which the gang decides on the way to execute the heist. They have a limited budget with which to buy equipment, from shovels to guns to paragliders.
| A few suggestions for your shopping list |
Finally there's the limited visibility. As long as they are not in sight, the gang are not on the board, which is why Inspector Zenigata has a challenge on his hands setting up his policemen at the start of the game.
![]() |
| Lupin pops up near Stonehenge to the surprise of inspector Zenigata and his agents |
Together, the heist scenarios, planning phase, hidden movement and conflicting goals of the players with unexpected twists in the execution phase make the game feel very much like the cartoon original. I think that´s a major achievement for a designer.
So, what's not to like about Lupin the 3rd, a good looking game dripping with theme and some interesting and rare mechanics? As in other cases (Gen-X, I'm looking at you here) English rules written by non-native speakers are not the easiest to digest. A combination of weak translation and sloppy rules writing leaves considerable gaps and confusion that players need to sort out during the game. Luckily there´s a revised English rulebook and a FAQ to provide some help.
As one of my friends said: rather than not playtesting it enough, they have probably playtested it too much and forgotten how much is assumed in the rules that we're not told about.
The visibility issues also can become problematic, which is why I think playing with an umpire is a good idea, especially when introducing players to the game. Does that diminish the game? I think not. But then I am used to half finished games where umpires and players work with the mechanics and role play rather than try to break it. If you are up for a unique game, brimming with theme, don't let these glitches stop you.
Saturday, 21 September 2013
Blücher, or the Burden of Command
Reading Roger Parkinson´s biography of Marshal Blücher I was confronted, more than in other military biographies, by the physical and emotional strain of military life, and command in particular. It may be Parkinson's inclusion of many fragments of Blücher's letters to his wife, in which he is very frank about his ailments and condition, that pointed this to me so strongly.
What I want to do in the following, is to sketch the elements of physical and emotional hardships to which the Hussar General and his contemporaries were exposed. This is probably not a complete list and I would appreciate if any reader would use the comment section to provide further suggestions and examples.
Throughout the book you get a good idea of how tough it was to be a commander in the Napoleonic age. The challenges were physical and mental, and sometime both at the same time. The marshal is also a good example of how commanders dealt with the stress.
The Physical
Campaigning was hard business. Commanders were expected to travel long distances on horseback on the march and on the battlefield. This was also not particularly comfortable, with bad roads and lots of cross country riding, so it helped to be an experienced rider. Since this was the fastest and most flexible mode of transport, commanders only reluctantly switched to carriages. Blücher did this only when he was not fit enough to travel on horseback, but never in battle.
Apart from travel, commanders spent time on administrative duties although Blücher was happy to leave that to his staff. Correspondence with other general officers and political could not be delegated as easily.
Although for officers accommodation was often much better than for the rank and file, there are a number of instances where even the Prussian commander in chief slept on the field wrapped in a cloak. Because of the amount of travel and other duties in a day, sleep was mostly short and night were often broken with urgent messages. Most letters to the home front contained some reference to tiredness.
In these conditions and with full exposure to the weather, it is not surprising that illness was a regular feature of campaign life, and Blücher caught a few bad ones in addition to some recurring ailments. When worn out he would often complain of inflammation of his eyes, which reduced his sight. After the victorious battle of Laon, the marshal's health failed completely and he was unable to exert effective command for weeks.
The Mental
Command was draining emotionally as much as physically. The responsibility for the lives of so many and the political consequences of failures were high. Throughout the campaigns of 1813 to 1815, Blücher was driven by his memory of the humiliation of 1806 and the near dissolution of the Prussian state as a result. Knowing the ability of Napoleon to bounce back from defeat, he drove as hard as possible to make the most of his victories by hot pursuit and keeping pressure to keep his enemy off balance.
Responsibility became personal when it led to the loss of close colleagues, friends and relatives. Blücher was deeply shaken by the death of his friend and chief of staff Scharnhorst.
Leadership also included overcoming opposition from your own side. Corps commanders Yorck and Langeron posed considerable challenges to Blücher's authority. Differences of opinion would mix with conflicts of character to ruin plans and paralyse operations. Blücher's letters to his wife are full of frustrations over missed opportunities and misinterpreted communications.
But superiors could prove as troublesome as subordinates. Monarchs intervened in campaigns out of political considerations, reducing the freedom of the field commander. The 1813-1814 campaigns were particular examples of this due to the presence of the monarchs in the theatre of operations. Blücher was so disappointed in the lenient terms of the Paris peace treaty in 1814 that he offered the King his resignation. This soured his relationship with his old friends Gneisenau and Hardenberg in the early stages of the Waterloo campaign.
High command could be a very lonely place. Although the Prussian marshal was relatively open and friendly with his staff, French marshals were known to be withdrawn and reluctant to share information and privacy with their subordinates. Ney, who had been a fairly approachable general, changed to a more reticent nature when he became a marshal and often dined alone. The deepest emotions could often only be shared with close relatives. Blücher, Ney and Davout poured out their hearts to their wives in their letters, but saw them very seldomly.
Where The Twain Meet
But the biggest and most traumatic element of command was combat. With the importance of example and intervention on the battlefield, commanders often exposed themselves in the front lines to rally retreating troops, to react to enemy moves and to lead attacks. Cannon balls would reach furthest, but generals were often close enough to the front to be within musket range or even get tangled up in melee.
Considering the state of battlefield surgery and medicine, getting wounded was life treathening even if not immediately lethal. So it was proved by Blücher's chief of staff Scharnhorst, who died in June 1813 of a neglected wound.
As a cavalry commander, Blücher would often lead its charges. In one such instance at the close of the battle of Ligny, his horse was wounded by a musket ball, and fell upon him. The quick reaction of his adjudant Nostitz prevented his capture by French cavaly, but his fall left him unconscious for several hours and he only came to in the nick of time to direct the Prussian army towards Wavre, rather than Liège.
At Lützen (or Groß Görschen as the Prussians would argue), a musket ball grazed his back as he led yet another cavalry charge. This superficial wound made horse riding most uncomfortable, with the wound occasionally opening again.
Nevertheless, it is clear that the old hussar was in his element in this environment and his staff often had to urge him to be more cautious. So physical courage should be considered a necessary condition for a field command. It was so much part of the officer ethos that I have found very few examples from this age admitting fear. If officers talked about disgust or emotion, it was mainly over exceptionally brutal behaviour, such as after storming of cities.
But the case of Blücher's son Franz is a good illustration of the mental impact of a physical wound. Blücher junior was wounded by a blow to the head (probably at the battle of Dresden) and captured by the French. Although he returned to active service after his liberation from a French hospital in the autumn of 1813, he later developed a mental condition (post traumatic stress disorder?) which led to his institutionalisation until his death. This was a cause for much grief to his father.
Release Or Breakdown
Even though most of these men can be considered experienced campaigners who had seen it all, it is clear that the trauma and stress was too big to shrug off. So they found release in alcohol, gambling, dancing and sex. The field marshal was very fond of the first three (even raking up such debts in his later years that he needed to ask his monarch to help out) but I have found no reference to the latter. Given the common occurrence of mistresses and prostitutes in this period among his colleagues, I think it unlikely that Blücher would not have joined in the fun.
Sometimes even that was not enough. Wellington, prime example of the Etonian stiff upper lip, was moved to tears after Waterloo. But it could get worse...
It seems that the iron will of the marshal sometime pushed him over the edge. His most celebrated mental breakdown occurred in the years after Jena and Auerstädt, when he was sidelined as commander in Pommerania while he saw Prussia constantly humiliated by Napoleon. He developed hallucinations and even claimed that he was pregnant with an elephant. This condition lasted for several months.
The story of Blücher´s physical collapse in March 1814 also shows how precarious the hierarchy was. Hallucinating and blinded by infected eyes, he was restricted to bed and incapable of command. When Gneisenau started to issue orders in the absence of the chief, experienced but troublesome corps commander Yorck almost immediately handed in is resignation and could only be recalled by waking Blücher temporarily from his hallucinations.
Gneisenau, although a great chief of staff, seemed paralysed by the responsibility and the senior corps commander, French émigré in Russian service, Count Langeron also stepped back. The decision was therefor made to keep the patient in nominal command until he recovered. But the army was effectively immobilised for almost two weeks.
And by the summer of 1815, the old marshal finally had had his fill of warfare, as he wrote in a letter to his wife. He longed for home, his wife and quiet.
Labels:
1813,
1814,
1815,
Battle of Nations,
books,
command,
generalship,
Napoleonics,
review,
Waterloo
Saturday, 14 September 2013
650 Pages of Annoying Your Audience
Spare me the lame attempts at humour based on national stereotypes. Even if they claim to aim for the opposite. Stephen Clarke´s 1000 Years Of Annoying The French is the kind of book that makes you weep for the insult to the trees felled to print it on.
I read the part on the Napoleonic Wars to see how it is dished up to a modern British audience. It includes the studied Anglo-Saxon arrogance you'd expect and duly repeats the Nelson mythology. Surprisingly, it gives Napoleon quite some credit for his civil reforms while noting his misogynist streak in law making. It even notices that Waterloo couldn't have been won without the Prussians and that there were Dutch and Germans present.
It is in fact too even handed and serious. This light weight history of Anglo-French relations lacks the consistent wit of 1066 And All That. Had it displayed over the top jingoism at least you could have laughed at that. But adding the odd French bon mot doesn't make up for satire. I honestly recorded only one audible snigger. And it had better been restricted to 200 hundred pages.
Somebody please shout out and deliver me of this. Postage is on me.
![]() |
| A bore of a book |
It is in fact too even handed and serious. This light weight history of Anglo-French relations lacks the consistent wit of 1066 And All That. Had it displayed over the top jingoism at least you could have laughed at that. But adding the odd French bon mot doesn't make up for satire. I honestly recorded only one audible snigger. And it had better been restricted to 200 hundred pages.
![]() |
| It was about this annoying |
Somebody please shout out and deliver me of this. Postage is on me.
Thursday, 12 September 2013
Napoleon and his Marshals by Macdonell
This book is very well written: the story flows, with anecdotes sprinkled liberally but always in the service of the characterisation of the marshals. Those characterisations are masterful and bring to life men from two centuries ago, although maybe not always free from Macdonells preconceptions.
We follow the story ofFrance ’s military elite from the divisional commanders of the Army of Italy awaiting their new, unknown chief in 1795 to the death of Marmont in 1852. Short flash backs introduce the new characters as they appear on stage: their often humble backgrounds, early military careers and their rise to prominence and relation to Napoleon.
But to Macdonell, that lack of moderation was not what brought down the Empire. He paints the decline after 1807 in gloomy colours as talented young commanders like Lasalle, Montbrun and Lannes die fighting for it. The opposition to Napoleon’s attack onRussia is described in detail and even more so the psychological effect of that campaign on for example Ney, Oudinot and Davout.
Then again, this book was written eighty years ago and it shows in many other ways. For example when Macdonell reassures us that although there is no bibliography, the reader should trust that every detail is backed up by a source. But it is hard to find a better book to read by the fireside and imagine yourself just for a second next to Ney as he guards the rear of the Grande Armée, musket in hand, against the swarming cossacks in the cold and snow.
We follow the story of
Macdonell makes two more exceptions from the description of military campaigns. The first is the story of the coup of Brumaire1799 and the second of the failed 1804 coup against Napoleon and his creation of the marshalate. To Macdonell these events were closely related.
The French revolutionary army was highly politicised, and republican and Jacobin factions competed with those that put more emphasis on return to order. This power struggle was behind the coups, and Napoleon’s creation of the marshalate was an attempt to reconcile those factions and bind them to his regime. The 1804 coup provided him with the opportunity to found a monarchy and dynasty but also removed credible alternatives for the opposition to rally around, like Moreau and Bernadotte.
In that way the list of marshals reflects Napoleon’s desire: old revolutionary heroes like Kellermann and Sérurier, Jacobins from the Army of the Rhine like Jourdan and Augereau, and his own supporters from Egypt (Davout), Italy (Berthier) and his younger days (Murat). Even Bernadotte was welcomed back.
As a whole the marshals performed their task loyally and dutifully, but their loyalty was to Napoleon, or France , not to each other. They showed inordinate egoism and ambition instead of collegiality and this proved a dangerous weakness when the master was absent, as in Spain, or unwilling to enforce cooperation, as in Russia .
![]() |
| Year of birth of the marshals, most were older than Napoleon |
But to Macdonell, that lack of moderation was not what brought down the Empire. He paints the decline after 1807 in gloomy colours as talented young commanders like Lasalle, Montbrun and Lannes die fighting for it. The opposition to Napoleon’s attack on
By 1813, the lust for glory and belief in the genius of the chief was no longer driving the marshals, but rather duty and loyalty. And in the end their lack of faith in the military and political judgement of the emperor led to his downfall a year later.
Even some of his oldest friends, like Marmont, switched their allegiance to the Bourbons. Others watched from the fence as he returned from Elba, professing their allegiance to France rather than the empire. Mortier dutifully escorted King Louis on his flight to the border, then returned to serve the emperor. Ney went from “I’ll bring him back in a cage” to command at Waterloo .
With so few loyal supporters left, Napoleon was forced to place his best commanders, Davout and Soult, in Paris and his headquarters. If not the deciding factor in his final defeat, it was at least critical.
A lesser book would have spent more pages on Napoleon, but Macdonell resists that temptation and focuses on the motivations and interrelations of the marshals. Their many feuds and occasional friendships. Of course, there is more to say about the marshalate as the apex of a new military aristocracy, and its diplomatic and political role. A present day researcher might take a more systematic approach to this subject.
Then again, this book was written eighty years ago and it shows in many other ways. For example when Macdonell reassures us that although there is no bibliography, the reader should trust that every detail is backed up by a source. But it is hard to find a better book to read by the fireside and imagine yourself just for a second next to Ney as he guards the rear of the Grande Armée, musket in hand, against the swarming cossacks in the cold and snow.
Labels:
Battle of Nations,
books,
Leipzig,
Napoleon,
Napoleonics,
review,
Waterloo
Saturday, 31 August 2013
Essen 2013 watch out list inaugurated
I´ve put up my list of games to watch out for in Essen at boardgamegeek.com.
I have started with Pete Ruth's excellent report on GenCon and will add games from Eric Martin's preview list later. I'm also adding opinions and reviews from some people who've played the games in the run up to Essen, so you might want to check back once in a while. Your suggestions are also more than welcome!
I will be tweeting from the show as @jurdj on the Thursday and Friday and post a few pics if time allows. And Saturday on the way home we will play a few of the games we bought. In the run up and afterwards I will also post here at Rear Guard Action.
![]() |
| Serious gaming: playing King of Tokyo in bed |
I will be tweeting from the show as @jurdj on the Thursday and Friday and post a few pics if time allows. And Saturday on the way home we will play a few of the games we bought. In the run up and afterwards I will also post here at Rear Guard Action.
Labels:
Ameritrash,
boardgame,
boardgames,
Essen 2011,
essen 2012,
Essen 2013,
euro,
review,
Spiel
Wednesday, 21 August 2013
John Terraine goes myth busting WWI
The Smoke and the Fire is a well witten and entertaining read with a clear intent. Terraine has no time for studies critical of British commander in chief Douglas Haig and other WWI generals such as The Donkeys by Alan Clark and Haig’s Command by Denis Winter. In that sense the book feels a lot like Corrigan’s later Mud, Blood and Poppycock that also sets out to bust the myths of incompetence and mass slaughter.
This means Terraine also has little sympathy for Lidell Hart and Fuller, the earliest criticasters of WWI generalship. One chapter dismisses Lidell Hart as a man traumatised by his battlefield experience and suggests that Fuller later rescinded on his earlier views. Of course, to Lidell Hart and Fuller, their criticism was not just a matter of history but also a way to advance their ideas of the future of the British army in the Interbellum.
Terraine defends the military leadership by arguing that contrary to the 'donkeys' caricature they did see the potential of modern weapons and quickly adopted many innovations like machine guns and tanks, but that the delays were in development and production. So the civilians were to blame, really.
Likewise, the maintenance of a sizeable cavalry force was not the result of pigheaded cavalry generals clinging to an outdated arm, but to the fact that cavalry was the only means of operational exploitation of a breakthrough. The technical limits of tanks meant that even by 1918 deep and sustained penetration was impossible. In the spring of 1918 the Germans sorely felt the lack of cavalry to achieve the final breakthrough.
While he acknowledges the cock up that the first day on the Somme was, Terraine argues that this was due to inexperience and too much faith in the effect of artillery. He points out that losses quickly fell and success increased in the following months. And it was the German insistence on counterattack that lent the battle its gruesome human toll. But according to Terraine, that is why it achieved its objective of distracting the Germans from Verdun and wearing the German army out.
The best point that Terraine makes is that you have to see WWI in the perspective of the American Civil War and WWII. These are wars in which the challenge was not just military but more so in mobilising a complex whole of economy and society towards victory on many battlefields. That also means the war won’t be won in a single battle. Attrition is part and parcel.
As such the war was a huge challenge to the generals involved: training, organising, supplying and leading mass armies in an environment of solidified defensive lines and a mass of new, unproven technology. But those technological advantages are few and short-lived as the enemy catches up.
This applies to WWII as well. Although the Germans can win early on against opponents that haven’t acquired an answer to their operational innovations, this then turns for the worse. Even the string of unprecedented victories in Russia in 1941 cost them more casualties than the battle of Verdun.
Which ties in with Terraine’s firm stance that the object of war is the defeat of the enemy main army. As long as that is in the field, any diversion only means dispersal of force. On this point he criticises both politicians like Lloyd George and Churchill who pursued campaigns in minor theatres as well as theorists like Lidell Hart who advocated an indirect approach.
For Terraine there is no way around it and evasion of the showdown on the Western Front was just a lack of moral courage to face up to the truth and its ugly consequences. Modern warfare, with its mass armies, will result in mass casualties. The search for a bloodless solution only lengthened the war and caused more casualties.
I think that whoever reads Terraine, like Corrigan, has to readjust their visor from the Lions Led By Donkeys school. But not all the way. Although Terraine often uses statistics and source material to support his point, he rarely goes into great depth, weighing both sides of the argument. It´s hard to find a point where Haig doesn´t come out clean and his detractors come out looking like fools.
Because of that, on a different level this book gave me the indefinable feeling that the lines on these issues in the first post war decades were linked to what faction of British history writers you belonged to. And that was probably related to which school you´d been to, the party you voted for and who published your books. This social dimension gave these discussions a shrill tone that also for example also pervades the post war discussion of generals like Montgomery. I can´t lay my finger on what the factions were though.
Thanks to Nick for giving me this books as a birthday present. The other was Tilt by Nicolas Shrady on the history of Pisa and its tower.
This means Terraine also has little sympathy for Lidell Hart and Fuller, the earliest criticasters of WWI generalship. One chapter dismisses Lidell Hart as a man traumatised by his battlefield experience and suggests that Fuller later rescinded on his earlier views. Of course, to Lidell Hart and Fuller, their criticism was not just a matter of history but also a way to advance their ideas of the future of the British army in the Interbellum.
Terraine defends the military leadership by arguing that contrary to the 'donkeys' caricature they did see the potential of modern weapons and quickly adopted many innovations like machine guns and tanks, but that the delays were in development and production. So the civilians were to blame, really.
Likewise, the maintenance of a sizeable cavalry force was not the result of pigheaded cavalry generals clinging to an outdated arm, but to the fact that cavalry was the only means of operational exploitation of a breakthrough. The technical limits of tanks meant that even by 1918 deep and sustained penetration was impossible. In the spring of 1918 the Germans sorely felt the lack of cavalry to achieve the final breakthrough.
While he acknowledges the cock up that the first day on the Somme was, Terraine argues that this was due to inexperience and too much faith in the effect of artillery. He points out that losses quickly fell and success increased in the following months. And it was the German insistence on counterattack that lent the battle its gruesome human toll. But according to Terraine, that is why it achieved its objective of distracting the Germans from Verdun and wearing the German army out.
![]() |
| Sadly, my copy of The Donkeys seems to have gone AWOL |
The best point that Terraine makes is that you have to see WWI in the perspective of the American Civil War and WWII. These are wars in which the challenge was not just military but more so in mobilising a complex whole of economy and society towards victory on many battlefields. That also means the war won’t be won in a single battle. Attrition is part and parcel.
As such the war was a huge challenge to the generals involved: training, organising, supplying and leading mass armies in an environment of solidified defensive lines and a mass of new, unproven technology. But those technological advantages are few and short-lived as the enemy catches up.
This applies to WWII as well. Although the Germans can win early on against opponents that haven’t acquired an answer to their operational innovations, this then turns for the worse. Even the string of unprecedented victories in Russia in 1941 cost them more casualties than the battle of Verdun.
Which ties in with Terraine’s firm stance that the object of war is the defeat of the enemy main army. As long as that is in the field, any diversion only means dispersal of force. On this point he criticises both politicians like Lloyd George and Churchill who pursued campaigns in minor theatres as well as theorists like Lidell Hart who advocated an indirect approach.
![]() |
| Dispersal of British Imperial forces according to Terraine p 57 |
I think that whoever reads Terraine, like Corrigan, has to readjust their visor from the Lions Led By Donkeys school. But not all the way. Although Terraine often uses statistics and source material to support his point, he rarely goes into great depth, weighing both sides of the argument. It´s hard to find a point where Haig doesn´t come out clean and his detractors come out looking like fools.
Because of that, on a different level this book gave me the indefinable feeling that the lines on these issues in the first post war decades were linked to what faction of British history writers you belonged to. And that was probably related to which school you´d been to, the party you voted for and who published your books. This social dimension gave these discussions a shrill tone that also for example also pervades the post war discussion of generals like Montgomery. I can´t lay my finger on what the factions were though.
Thanks to Nick for giving me this books as a birthday present. The other was Tilt by Nicolas Shrady on the history of Pisa and its tower.
Labels:
Anglo-Saxon,
books,
industry,
review,
strategy,
technology,
WWI
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)























