Philip Sabin

An interesting study of tabletop wargaming design for educational and recreational purposes by someone who is intimately familiar with the subject matter, having designed many games himself and taught classes on the subject. It’s not surprising that the book, therefore, reads largely like an academic textbook. It was a little surprising that it also feels a little self-absorbed at times, with references to Sabin’s own work, the work of his students, etc. It’s a testament, therefore, to how good the rest of the book is and how clearly the ideas are laid out. that I could overlook the scattered navel gazing moments. Sabin uses the first two parts to he book to explain the systems and mechanics of wargaming, detailing why he believes this approach or that works best. It may feel remedial to some gamers, but I think this is where the book shines. Do we weigh down the experience with detailed chrome to enhance the accuracy of the simulation, or do we abstract or streamline parts to make the experience more enjoyable or digestable? His third part is filled with examples of play. I recommend this book to anyone who has any kind of interest in wargaming or simulation gaming, but it’s difficult to recommend to anyone outside that small circle.… (altro)

This is a curious beast - both a fully playable wargame and an academic study about analyzing ancient battle with the help of wargaming. I haven't tried the game yet - being quite abstract yet heavy on die roll modifiers, I fear it may not be the most exciting of wargames, but the proof of any game is in actual play - but the analysis is lucid and frequently convincing.

Something to note is that Sabin presumes that the reader knows the basics of the battles under reconsideration. Nothing that can't be remedied by having Wikipedia at hand, but it may prove heavy going to the novice.… (altro)

In order to cash in on this widely overpriced work, Cambridge University Press dropped all quality standards: Sloppy editing (one contributor repeatedly refers to his non-existent subtitle), sloppy fact-checking (Victor Davis Hanson being Victor Davis Hanson), outdated and language restricted sources, a flawed overall research design and a general non communication among the contributors. In the end, it's a collection of essays of mixed quality, some truly awful, some quite enlightening.

The most critical aspect is the flawed research design that breaks down Greek warfare into two periods (classical and Hellenistic) which forces the topic into a bed of Prokrustes. The second flaw of the research design is the presentation of the Greek (and later Roman) side only, a kabuki approach that ignores modern research paradigms and is not helpful in understanding the dynamic element of warfare. Greek warfare did not evolve in a vacuum.

Why the editors let Victor Davis Hanson write about "The modern historiography of ancient warfare" is a mystery to me. Azar Gat has written two books about the topics covered and would certainly have written a better essay. Instead, the space is given to Hanson's badly structured, sloppily researched and biased essay. Hanson whose command of the German language (if he reads German at all) and the literature is not proportional to his wide-ranging statements he makes about the German historical school. Hanson being Hanson, he strays from his topic to modern times, only to blunder about "the (20th century) demilitarization oft he Danube" (the last time the Danube was militarized was during the Habsburg Ottoman wars) and "post-Marxist discussion of ancient warfare" (whatever this means, no sources supplied, which seems to be the general approach Hanson takes to opposing views).

Overall, a very disappointing result. Cambridge University Press should hang their collective heads in shame.… (altro)