Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Neat, I look forward to learning more, hope you post back as your research progresses!

Cheers

 Ketara wrote:
This is essentially about the combination of everything in one big package. If I didn't make that clear before now (since people keep dropping in to refer to Kriegspiel variants), I apologise for the miscommunication, but that's what I'm getting at.

I think this is a rare thing in miniature wargaming for most of its history. GW didn't even start out that way. They only made warhammer when they were trying to find a way to get people to buy more miniatures than they were using for their Dungeons and Dragons games.

The norm for wargaming for decades is that one sources the rules, figures and terrain from a variety of sources rather than one. You're looking for an aberration and then calling it essential.

I think you probably need to fast forward to the late 1960s to find anything even close to an example of what you are looking for. Like when early figure manufacturers sell rules as well as figures for the first time. But even then they're not really being packaged. Even when the Airfix company was making rules to go with their figures in the 1970s, they still sold them as a separate product to their boxes of figures.

The first miniatures wargames were rules written by people who did not make or sell miniatures. Packaging things together is probably not something you're going to find until much, much later.

For example, Scruby started making figures in 1957 and while they published some rules they are totally an afterthought in their business. Here's a 10 year anniversary of the business announcement and not a mention of rules in sight. In fact, Scruby even talks about the books published by others leading to people to play wargames with the figures. Though he would eventually start throwing in a pamphlet of his very basic rules with larger orders of figures.

 frozenwastes wrote:
The norm for wargaming for decades is that one sources the rules, figures and terrain from a variety of sources rather than one. You're looking for an aberration and then calling it essential.

Errr....what?

Mate, I'm pointing out that I appear to have some evidence of what I would consider to be the first proper miniature wargame available as a commercial package. I don't mean literally necessarily in one specific box (to try and communicate this another way to you). I mean, they could well be (Heck that's why this one is cropping up) but even GW doesn't bundle army books with models half the time. I'm referring to the creation of a specific codified wargame ruleset linked and intended to be used with commercially available specific models. As one commercially available 'package'. Does that help?

Because this predates the first one that I'm aware of (that is to say, H.G. Wells and W. Britain). The fact that it is 'rare' as you put it, is what makes it interesting and of note in my book. It's entirely the point. A full wargame with both rules and models commercially available and linked. What Games Workshop or Jack Scruby, or even Donald Featherstone did isn't really here or there.

It feels a little like you're trying to pick an argument here to show off what you know about wargames history. I appreciate you might not be trying to do that, but it's slightly how it's coming across. If you feel that rules writer and manufacturer combining (formally or not) to make a miniature wargame commercially available is something not particularly of note, or some weird attempt to separate out an arbitrary marker in the 'history' of wargaming. That's cool. I can respect that. But for me, it's interesting!


EDIT:- Speaking of more general wargames history, I spotted this in the NMM's collection. Anyone familiar with it? Can't seem to track any other detailed down after a casual search. It's labelled as 'Captain Inglefield's Naval Tactics Board Game'. Board is signed by globemaker Edward Stanford and rules are written around the board. No implication of any miniatures sadly, but I daresay they've have played with something!

When you title something with the words "the first Miniatures Wargame" and then discount earlier examples (chess/go, Kriegspiel, Polemos and so on) by making a narrow definition of what you are looking for, it's only natural that someone questioning the assumptions needed to make that move might come across in a way that rubs you the wrong way.

It was a joy to see the page you posted and I do appreciate learning about what you have discovered. This looks like an excellent example of a military training tool. I wonder if any of the model ships survive. Is there any description of what the models were made of or how representative they were?

Basically I'm just saying it's probably not a good idea to take a common feature of today's miniature wargames (seller makes figures and rules and sells them together) and then use that to discount other examples of war games so you can rediscover the first "miniatures wargame." The criteria you are using to do so has never been a universal defining factor in the hobby and many, many figure and rules manufacturers today still don't necessarily produce both.

I think you've found something great here. A seller actually providing figures to go with the rules (which previously used counters?) rather than cases like the use of figures by the gamers (like the Polemos news story). I just disagree with using the criteria you used to define this discovery into being the fist miniatures wargame as well as your dismissal of earlier examples because they don't have this feature that still to this day isn't universal in the hobby.

The criteria seems especially arbitrary when you discount the game of polemos as illustrated in that 1888 news article. It stops counting because the people who combined the rules with the figures weren't selling it as a product? I'm not so sure. I guess if you're only interested in the commercial history of wargames. But even then one could argue that a presentation at RUSI was a commercial activity-- an event that even attracted the media and promoted the type of interesting things members of the RUSI might be up to.

I don't think Kriegspiel nor the various other games of the period should be discounted. People obviously did combine them with miniatures even for reasons other than making a product to sell.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Skinflint Games wrote:
Fascinating stuff - congratulations on turning up something lost to history, that's a real achievement!

I totally agree. That is awesome!

 frozenwastes wrote:

Basically I'm just saying it's probably not a good idea to take a common feature of today's miniature wargames (seller makes figures and rules and sells them together) and then use that to discount other examples of war games so you can rediscover the first "miniatures wargame." The criteria you are using to do so has never been a universal defining factor in the hobby and many, many figure and rules manufacturers today still don't necessarily produce both.

It's more that for me, it's the distinction between 'Wargaming' (ala Kriegspiel going up to modern theoretical military exercises and computer games), toy soldiers (from lead figurines played with by aristocratic children up to dime a dozen plastic army men), and the intended combination of the two.

I accept that it's kind of fuzzy as a border goes (aren't these things always?); but you have to plant the flag somewhere to differentiate a 'Miniatures Wargame' from 'Wargaming' and 'Miniatures'. So whilst kids in the nineteenth century, or gents sitting in the RUSI throwing some models on the table to play Polemos with is miniature wargam-ing per se (you'll have no quarrel from me there), it's not the first 'Miniatures War-Game'. Does that make sense? In order for something to be the first Miniatures Wargame (to me at least) requires the vision and intent to stitch all the different elements together intentionally from the start. The rules are written for the models and the models made for the rules within a specific conceptual framework.

In that regards, even the commercial element isn't entirely relevant or important; I just added that as a way of guarding against the possible revelation that General Redvers Buller did some lead casting in a shed aged seventeen whilst rules writing.

 frozenwastes wrote:

I think you've found something great here. A seller actually providing figures to go with the rules (which previously used counters?) rather than cases like the use of figures by the gamers (like the Polemos news story). I just disagree with using the criteria you used to define this discovery into being the fist miniatures wargame as well as your dismissal of earlier examples because they don't have this feature that still to this day isn't universal in the hobby.

At the moment, it describes them explicitly as 'models' within the paperwork. That's all I've got at the moment. So it could really be the most absolutely basic kind of miniature representation if we're being pragmatic. The choice of word means it's likely not to be tokens or blocks or suchlike, but it could be as simple as appropriately sized boat shaped pieces of wood with holes drilled in to insert wooden tube funnels. I doubt it would have been anything too complicated.

I would speculate (given the intended use) that whatever the 'models' looked like, there would have been markings or physical representations appropriate for size, guns and funnels. Beyond that? I suspect we may never know; I've had no luck with the NMM catalogue.

Like most history, the search for a "first" is just a simplification/popularization (as in making appealing to the masses) of what is actual. What is actual is that "wargaming" exists on an evolving continuum and the search for a "first" is a bit of a misnomer. It really is a search for something that appeals to the masses and can sell as an easy headline.

 Ketara wrote:
So whilst kids in the nineteenth century, or gents sitting in the RUSI throwing some models on the table to play Polemos with is miniature wargam-ing per se (you'll have no quarrel from me there), it's not the first 'Miniatures War-Game'. Does that make sense?

I understand the idea that there's some sort of conceptual difference between "wargam-ing" and war-"game" but I don't think that's an actual difference. What were the first people doing miniature wargam-ing playing? Something other than a miniature war-game?

In order for something to be the first Miniatures Wargame (to me at least) requires the vision and intent to stitch all the different elements together intentionally from the start. The rules are written for the models and the models made for the rules within a specific conceptual framework.

I don't. I think the organic combination of rules and models from different sources is far more typical of the hobby. "From the start" raises the question as to what the start is. For me, it's actual play rather than commercial activity or writing something with that intent for publication. The first miniature wargame is what was played when people took miniatures and played a war game with them. Even if they didn't then decide to sell it to others or recognize it as somehow this new thing.

I also disagree with idea that the rules need to be written for the models and the models made for the rules thing needs to be present. Even to this day rules often need to be written with no figures in mind because of the great variety of figure scales people might use. They might have figures in mind in the general sense, but no particular figures are required. And often the figures don't ever matter in the rules. Even to the point that in many instances the figures could be easily replaced with flat counters like what Sam Mustafa has been doing with his recent designs.

Most games simply have the figures be a visual upgrade to using some sort of flat counter (or cylindrical counter for those that take height or volume into consideration like warmachine or the warhammers). Which is exactly what the game at RUSI was. A visual upgrade of a game that used counters. And isn't this also what this game was? Weren't the earlier sets sold with counters rather than models? I could have misread that or got it confused but I thought you mentioned that.

In that regards, even the commercial element isn't entirely relevant or important; I just added that as a way of guarding against the possible revelation that General Redvers Buller did some lead casting in a shed aged seventeen whilst rules writing.

I think your reasoning might rely on the commercial element as the only thing that seems to distinguish it from the other examples that use both rules and miniatures is on what side of the commercial transaction it occurred. Did the person selling it stitch the elements together or simply provide one element stitched together by the players? I'd say the event at RUSI shows a singular vision and intent for the event to stitch it all together even if they sourced their rules and their figures from two different manufacturers.

The children in the 19th century who came up with rules for their zinnfiguren flats don't stop counting because someone didn't sell it all bundled together. Their vision and intent to combine miniatures with rules was certainly there regardless. Even to the point of them growing up and teaching their own children the games they developed. Personal journals and diaries mentioning this exist. Though I think mostly in German and Russian.

I think the commercial side of things is a required category to claim this is a first. It does indeed appear to be a first as far as a product is concerned. As far as vision and intent to stitch all the elements together, I don't agree. I think that happened every time someone took rules and figures and combined them.

I say embrace the commercial product side of things. It does indeed appear to be a true first in that regards. As a miniature wargame product that combined both rules and models for sale together.

At the moment, it describes them explicitly as 'models' within the paperwork. That's all I've got at the moment.
[...]
I would speculate (given the intended use) that whatever the 'models' looked like, there would have been markings or physical representations appropriate for size, guns and funnels. Beyond that? I suspect we may never know; I've had no luck with the NMM catalogue.

It would certainly be strange if the models were used in a tactical training exercise but you couldn't tell any of the vessels apart. I suppose they could have all been the same but then have numbers or other things to distinguish them. Who knows.

 frozenwastes wrote:

It makes sense, but I think it puts too much emphasis on the commercial side of things. Where people doing much the same thing stop counting because they weren't selling something.

Hmm. Thinking it over, it's not so much the commercial aspect; that's merely an offshoot. It's the intent of the creator and their level of involvement. The RUSI gents and kids mucking about are consumers. They didn't write the rules, or make the models. It's like someone taking a silencer that happens to fit a shotgun and screwing it in; as opposed to someone setting out to design and manufacture a silenced shotgun. Sure, the first person had a silenced shotgun, but did they make a silenced shotgun, or did they just screw two parts together someone else built?

The answer is, they kind of made one. They conceptualised putting the two components together. But they didn't manufacture either one, and neither part was designed for the other even loosely. Was the first armoured car the one that was built as an armoured car, or the one that two kids glued a steel sheet on the side of? Again, it's that thing where the border is a bit fuzzy. Does that make sense? Both require the same conceptual leap, but one requires actually translating it into something a bit more practical.

I suppose the best way to put it would be that one group HAD the first miniature wargame, the other one MADE the first miniature wargame. Which is doubly confusing.

Funnily enough, Lord Armstrong, the pioneer of modern artillery actually said something similar IIRC. Something about how anyone can invent something, but to actually make it is another cup of tea altogether. He was trying to differentiate between someone first conceptualising something in patent form, and someone actually building the thing in a workshop. Whilst someone else might have the 'first' idea of something on a bit of paper, he was the one that actually designed the bloody thing, worked out the kinks, manufactured it, etc. They were having a big debate about the first patent laws, you see.

So I guess in that we're actually going back to a very fine hair that's been split many times over the years.

It would certainly be strange if the models were used in a tactical training exercise but you couldn't tell any of the vessels apart. I suppose they could have all been the same but then have numbers or other things to distinguish them. Who knows.

Aye. I asked a friend who's seen the chap's diaries if he'd spotted anything wargaming related, but he couldn't recall it. I suspect if anything comes out of this, it'll be purely by chance in my digging at the National Archives.

I say go with the commerical distinction. Has anyone ever found another example of rules and figures/models sold together in this era at all? Seems to only happen again many decades later.

Take a game that uses counters and upgrade it visually to use miniatures. That seems to be what's happening here as well as in the game at RUSI.

Take figures and make up rules to play with them. That seems to be what's happening with HG Wells and the German and Russian children with their flats and semi-flats of the mid-late 19th century.

Take figures and rules and sell them as a combined package? This looks like the earliest example. And not one that would appear again for many decades. Even if it's not a defining characteristic of the hobby until the rise of Warhammer in the 80s and the copying of that bundling in the historical market even more recently.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:
Funnily enough, Lord Armstrong, the pioneer of modern artillery actually said something similar IIRC. Something about how anyone can invent something, but to actually make it is another cup of tea altogether. He was trying to differentiate between someone first conceptualising something in patent form, and someone actually building the thing in a workshop. Whilst someone else might have the 'first' idea of something on a bit of paper, he was the one that actually designed the bloody thing, worked out the kinks, manufactured it, etc. They were having a big debate about the first patent laws, you see.

Didn't the people who visually upgraded things like Polemos actually do it? They didn't just come up with the concept and not implement it. They actually played it. Even publicly enough to get in at least one newspaper. Did children in the 2nd half of the 19th century (and their parents and other family members) not actually play their games and even teach them to their children and perhaps their friends, cousins and other neighbourhood children. It's certainly not just a conceptual patent but no actual implementation. They actually played and shared their games with their children and grandchildren. I believe the earliest example I ever found was a Russian one which talks about learning the rules their grandfather played when he was a child. The diary was from the turn of the century so the original play seems to have originated right when Heinrichsen's Zinnfiguren were first available to those outside the nobility in the 1850s and 60s.

The commercial distinction is probably the only real distinction to be had. It's just anachronistic to have the commercial bundling of rules and miniatures to be a defining characteristic of the hobby for anything other than the last 40 years though.

 frozenwastes wrote:
I
Didn't the people who visually upgraded things like Polemos actually do it? They didn't just come up with the concept and not implement it. They actually played it. Even publicly enough to get in at least one newspaper.

As far as I'm aware, they were in position of the two kids gluing a steel sheet to a car door. Taking two different things designed by other people for different reasons and jamming them together. If they made their own game after all, it wouldn't be Polemos.

The commercial distinction is probably the only real distinction to be had. It's just anachronistic to have the commercial bundling of rules and miniatures to be a defining characteristic of the hobby for anything other than the last 40 years though.

I'll be honest, I don't really even care about the 'first' tag; I was bantering about it primarily because the concept of what makes something 'first' is intiguing to me and it seemed (and still does, to be honest) as if it fit the ticket.

Whether it was the first commercial miniature wargame, the first miniature wargame designed from the ground up as such, or neither of the above, I still find it of great interest that the RN bought hundreds of copies to teach naval tactics! I'm just hoping that I can find some more detail; it'd be fantastic to be able to recreate it.

What brought it up was the dismissal of Kriegspiel and the upgraded Polemos game at RUSI.

I'd consider a block or strip representing a formation of troops is very representational at either 1:8000 or 1:2373.

I consider the game at RUSI to be far more typical of the hobby than a company selling models and rules bundled together. The norm for the hobby for decades was that you'd source everything from multiple sources. Even playing Floor Wars or Shambattle or whatever had separate rules and figure sellers. HG Wells never sold toy soldiers.

I don't think either Kriegspiel or the Polemos game at RUSI should be discounted as earlier examples of the hobby. Nor do I consider the argument that Kriegspiel was somehow not representative to hold much water. The unit blocks and maps looked exactly like how battles are described in the history books of the time and following. And at 1:8000, expecting individual troopers and horse miniatures seems unreasonable. Kriegspiel is probably more representative of the situation it models than the vast, vast majority of miniature wargames out there.

And the earliest versions of Kriegspiel even used modular terrain tiles:

 frozenwastes wrote:

Nor do I consider the argument that Kriegspiel was somehow not representative to hold much water.

Just to clarify, are you actually saying that you think wooden blocks with unit markers count as miniature wargaming? Because the lack of miniatures is kind of the basis on which I primarily dismiss Kriegspiel as being a miniature wargame. If you're including Kriegspiel as a miniature wargame, I start to wonder how you separate 'Wargaming' from 'Miniature Wargaming'.

With regards to Polemos, as stated, sure, somebody played a miniature wargame using its ruleset. I'm not disputing that. But that doesn't make Polemos a miniature wargame in and of itself, anymore than if I decided to play Battleship or Chess, or Cluedo with more detailed figures. That's my distinction, I think.

I'll be honest, I'm not sure how much futher we can take this tangent. We clearly disagree on the criteria by which to plant the flag, as it were.

A miniature is just a 3d counter that represents combatants in a wargame. The Kriegspiel blocks are exactly that. Given the scale of 1:2373, I think they might actually be miniatures for our purposes. They certainly represent the formation better than a handful of tiny statues.

I think dismissing Kriegspiel as an early miniature wargame because it doesn't have toy soldiers involved is probably a mistake.

I get it though, everything but your find must be tossed aside. Even actual games played documented in newspapers somehow don't count because of some totally artificial distinction you've come up with.

Sorry, but those playing in 1812 on the table owned by King Friedrich Wilhelm III were playing a miniature wargame that predates your discovery. Rules, dice, terrain, miniature representations of forces.

And even going by your combined rules + models idea, Kriegspiel still counts. The 1812 table and rules were provided by a single source. Small blocks that represent the formations of soldiers more accurately than a handful of tiny statues ever would, the rules and the terrain and table all provided by the same source. Predating the order for this naval wargame by 88 years.

 frozenwastes wrote:

I get it though, everything but your find must be tossed aside.

Mate. I honestly don't give a crap if my find is the first miniature wargame or that honour belonged to a bunch of tin men cast up by Napoleon's bodyguard in his spare time. Seriously. My research is aimed at munitions procurement, not wargames. I dug around in some old documents and found one talking about an old wargame. Which is great.

But, y'know. It's a game. Really not serious business. So take a chill pill. Someone disagrees with you on the internet. It happens.

Even actual games played documented in newspapers somehow don't count because of some totally artificial distinction you've come up with.

I get it. You think any kind of board game that has pieces and a vague theme of 'war' is a miniature wargame. Whether it's made up of wooden blocks, or paperclips, or Risk pieces or whatever. That's fine. Your opinion, guv. I'm not going to stand here and say you're wrong. Technically, from an etymological perspective, it's not incorrect. I just don't understand how you'd differentiate between wargames (games about war) and miniatures wargames (that is to say, the hobby we indulge in on this forum) on any detailed level with that kind of separation. All distinctions for this sort of thing are artificial. It's why you can have a museum of naval aviation instead of just aviation.

In this instance, it's why I call myself a miniature wargamer instead of a board gamer. Which if I played Chess or Polemos, I wouldn't; even if I put a Space Marine Librarian on the board instead of a rook.

Take a brigade and zoom it out to 1:8000 of it's size.

What would the miniature to represent that look like?

Now you're joking that I wouldn't even distinguish between that an a paper clip?

The way you've dismissed any examples contrary to your claim is pretty striking. I hope you don't approach your munitions procurement research with the same relentless commitment to your original premise in the face of contrary examples. Just come up with reasons why things that don't agree with your premise don't count and you're golden!

 frozenwastes wrote:
Take a brigade and zoom it out to 1:8000 of it's size.
What would the miniature to represent that look like?
Now you're joking that I wouldn't even distinguish between that an a paper clip?

Pretty blobby. If not invisible. Which is why you'd use a marker. Or a paperclip. Or a piece of gum. Or all three to represent different units, because it doesn't matter anymore.

But then you'd be playing a wargame. Not a miniatures wargame. Because the miniatures (that is to say, the representative models) would be missing.

You could call it a 'Marker Wargame' or somesuch if you really wanted to. Doubtless if enough were made in that style and it got popular with people who liked just that kind of wargame and no other, it would get differentiated in such a way.

The way you've dismissed any examples contrary to your claim is pretty striking. I hope you don't approach your munitions procurement research with the same relentless commitment to your original premise in the face of contrary examples. Just come up with reasons why things that don't agree with your premise don't count and you're golden!

Dear Lord. Are you quite finished? Can we get back to interesting stuff now?

Success! Here are the extracts I managed to find in a transcript of King-Hall's diary:-



With all the talk of the RUSI earlier in the thread, it stirred a memory from one of my article dives. Acting on a hunch, I went through the RUSI back catalogue, and lo and behold! King-Hall actually gave a full description of his game there. So without much further ado:-



As can be seen in the article, the models are:-

'small painted metal shapes fitted with a pin for convenience of moving them. The unpainted metal ones (or in the earlier issues, the partly-colored ones) denote that they are flagships. The black and white represent battleships and the red-green cruisers.

Now to try and find a set. I might ask the Royal Navy Museum in portsmouth when I'm down there in a few weeks....

Nice work! Please continue to keep us posted.

Highly interesting find. With the information provided you may be able to recreate the game or, if you are lucky, can fashion a replica based on an original.

I can also understand your differentiation of wargaming and miniature wargaming. As long as you provide your reasoning I see no problem and to be fair I found it convincing enough to think of this as the first commercial miniature wargame. Token based ones may predate it, but the distinction can be surely made.

This is a very interesting thread! I hope you'll keep us updated, as I'd like to hear more about this topic. Good luck at the Royal Navy Museum in Portsmouth!

The findings are interesting enough, but the methodology of the search for sources is just as fascinating to me.

Miniatures wargames have a long history, but the OP is blind to a pertinent fact, at the time they were considered relevant to real strategic thinking and distribution was discouraged.

Little Wars was no challenge to anyone, while Kriegspiel was not seen in the same light. Many early wargames were for internal use only and it is not in any way surprising to me that you would find a detailed and fairly advanced ruleset in Admiralty archives.

Consequently more contemporary wargames may have existed under lock and key, we have evidence for some which had public release versions toned down from the versions used in staff colleges.

DaggerAndBrush wrote:
I can also understand your differentiation of wargaming and miniature wargaming. As long as you provide your reasoning I see no problem and to be fair I found it convincing enough to think of this as the first commercial miniature wargame. Token based ones may predate it, but the distinction can be surely made.

I'll be honest, I'm a little ambivalent about whether or not this would quite qualify as a miniature wargame or not now further detail is available. Sure, they're models, and sure, they're painted; but it appears that they might well effectively function as tokens. It's not entirely clear when the article says that the ship models aren't to scale whether it's stating the obvious (they're not the size of real warships), or that they're not to scale between types (so cruisers are the same size as battleships), or that there's a distorted scale (destroyers are smaller than battleships but not as small as they should be).

It really is one of those 'on the fence' scenarios. If it's just two dozen castings of one model which is supposed to represent everything; it's effectively a marker game with a very elaborate marker. As said above, it's like playing Kriegspiel with a dozen castings of a toy soldier. It would be a tabletop wargame that you were adding a miniature to.

If there's a few different models to differentiate between ship types though (meaning that the artistic modelling effectively has an in game impact, however small); it's a miniature wargame. That's how I'd see it.

Orlanth wrote:Miniatures wargames have a long history, but the OP is blind to a pertinent fact, at the time they were considered relevant to real strategic thinking and distribution was discouraged.

I look forward to your article re-assessing naval strategy and tactical education at the turn of the century. I know several naval historians who will be keen to mine whatever new archival sources you've uncovered.

Ketara wrote:
EDIT:- Speaking of more general wargames history, I spotted this in the NMM's collection. Anyone familiar with it? Can't seem to track any other detailed down after a casual search. It's labelled as 'Captain Inglefield's Naval Tactics Board Game'. Board is signed by globemaker Edward Stanford and rules are written around the board. No implication of any miniatures sadly, but I daresay they've have played with something!

I twisted a few arms over at the NMM to try and get some more details on this one. Apparently there's an accompanying game set to Inglefield's board that they possess; it is however entirely a marker based game. Might be fun to poke into a little bit more though; as said above, my only interest here is finding cool wargaming stuff.

 Ketara wrote:

Orlanth wrote:Miniatures wargames have a long history, but the OP is blind to a pertinent fact, at the time they were considered relevant to real strategic thinking and distribution was discouraged.

I look forward to your article re-assessing naval strategy and tactical education at the turn of the century. I know several naval historians who will be keen to mine whatever new archival sources you've uncovered.

Appeal to authority fallacy is not a panacea against rational critique.

 Orlanth wrote:

Appeal to authority fallacy is not a panacea against rational critique.

Who was appealing to authority? I've got better things to do than wade into the Sumida/Lambert/Epstein v Bell/Morgan Owen/Seligmann affair. Assuming you've half the knowledge you're claiming to have, and archival proof of the fresh re-evaluation of Edwardian naval strategy that you're suggesting; they'll all be very interested in hearing from you and keen to mine your sources.

I personally am professionally steering well clear of that quagmire; though I'll doubtless hear about your efforts down the grapevine if you're presenting at one of the bigger conferences. Good luck if you're going the anti-torpedo route though; I've heard some of them can get a bit....snappy.

 Ketara wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Appeal to authority fallacy is not a panacea against rational critique.

Who was appealing to authority? I've got better things to do than wade into the Sumida/Lambert/Epstein v Bell/Morgan Owen/Seligmann affair. Assuming you've half the knowledge you're claiming to have, and archival proof of the fresh re-evaluation of Edwardian naval strategy that you're suggesting; they'll all be very interested in hearing from you and keen to mine your sources.

I personally am professionally steering well clear of that quagmire; though I'll doubtless hear about your efforts down the grapevine if you're presenting at one of the bigger conferences. Good luck if you're going the anti-torpedo route though; I've heard some of them can get a bit....snappy.

I was mistaken into thinking that the thread was about rediscovering the first miniatures wargame, because that happens to be the title of the thread. I am not passing myself off as a master of Edwardian naval strategy, because it is not directly relevant, finding the oldest miniatures wargames is, and as they were as evidenced linked to staff colleges some might have been obfuscated by official secrets legislation.

Yes this game is a nice example, more importantly it fits the pattern, developed on the QT for non commercial purposes, and from the documentation looked at as a possible means to simulate a potential naval engagement with the French.

Point is you need to not only walk in and collect the data, you need to analyse it. The ruleset you linked to is very advanced, indicative that it was likely either forgotten or classified for much of the twentieth century, possibly both as it would also be quickly outdated. Kriegspiel also had rulesets, we read only of umpired Kriegspiel, and thus do not see the rules, but apparently rulesets did exist and the umpire in many cases had set rules to follow, the players were not privy to the rules so that they would make tactical decisions in a vacuum rather than based on a rulesets mechanics. Due to the defeat of Germany and the high sensitivity of the ruleset we don't see the restricted data copies and thus Kriegspiel is often not recognised for what it was.

It is possible that Kriegspiel itself is not the earliest ruleset either. We do not know but we can summise for further avenues of study. We know there was advanced modelling done of military simulations in the UK in the mid 19th century, it produced a number of advanced tacticians. However they were completely ignored by the hereditary nobility that was placed above them. Statistical modelling goes back even further, we know that Sébastien Le Prestre de Vauban created elegant mathematical models for siege warfare in the 17th century. Mathematical models don't show the whole picture for siegecraft, de Vauban had immense practical knowledge, but again based on theory. Did de Vauban create 3d models for his siegecraft as simulations? Siege models were not uncommon, if you mix a siege model with a mathematical model for a siege investment then you are 'gaming' the siege investment.
If you are interested in de Vauban there is a rare copy of his book on models of siegecraft in the Birmingham central library, it was in the restricted section, but part of the lending library. I was able to sign for it in the 1980's, as a military historian with admiralty archives access would be a snap. From memory it should help, but its an old memory and that was not what i was looking for when I borrowed the book.

 Orlanth wrote:

I was mistaken into thinking that the thread was about rediscovering the first miniatures wargame, because that happens to be the title of the thread. I am not passing myself off as a master of Edwardian naval strategy, because it is not directly relevant, finding the oldest miniatures wargames is, and as they were as evidenced linked to staff colleges some might have been obfuscated by official secrets legislation....Point is you need to not only walk in and collect the data, you need to analyse it. The ruleset you linked to is very advanced, indicative that it was likely either forgotten or classified for much of the twentieth century, possibly both as it would also be quickly outdated...

In that case, I'll keep this brief; because you don't appear to have sufficient background knowledge to understand the implications of your own statements. Which is fine, I wouldn't expect anyone to. It's niche, specialist stuff. But I'd advise not throwing around comments about the 'OP being blind', and 'needing to analyse the data'; when you apparently have no contextual knowledge whatsoever about the things to which you refer.

First off: The Admiralty's approach at this point in time to confidentiality is not great. A few very basic technologies are kept under the radar (methods of torpedo discharge, the Pioneer, etc), and I believe one clerk got prosecuted for passing commercial info to a private firm, but generally speaking, secrecy is a limp unimportant duck with regards to the Navy.

Secondly: This game was announced in detail at the RUSI. That makes it as good as public domain. There was very clearly no intent of trying to keep this game secret. It's just likely been passed over because nobody who saw it since (historian or otherwise) was interested in miniature wargames.

Third: The Edwardian Navy didn't have a general staff. There was some pressure from Admiral Fisher in that direction; but once it got picked up by his hated enemy Charlie Beresford as a stick to beat the Admiralty with; it got completely thrown off the radar. The CID meanwhile, didn't deal with anything like this (in case that's what you have in mind).

Fourth: There's been a lot (and I mean a lot) of historical squabbling over the extent of the Admiralty's level of strategic planning, ranging from nothing to some, to differentiating whether it was torpedo related, long gunfire orientated, etcetc. If you had proof that they were squirreling away wargames /secretly to strategise and practise with, that would bring in all sorts of other implications and factors. So if what you were saying was true and based on fact with regards to the Edwardian Navy, there would be a lot of people interested. It's the biggest historical hot potato in that sub-discipline at the moment, and there's a lot of bitterness and egos and competition involved.

 Ketara wrote:

In that case, I'll keep this simple; because you don't appear to have sufficient background knowledge to understand the implications of your own statements.

I wouldnt assume that, but there is nothing wrong with simple.

 Ketara wrote:

Which is fine, I wouldn't expect anyone to. It's niche, specialist stuff. But I'd advise not throwing around comments about the 'OP being blind', and 'needing to analyse the data'; when you apparently have no contextual knowledge whatsoever about the things to which you refer.

This is where your appeal to authority fallacy comes in. "I'm so esoteric you peons couldn't possibly understand me'. Dakka OT can handle specialist knowledge more than you might think.
Yep, you need to analyse the data as well as regurgitate it.

 Ketara wrote:

First off: The Admiralty's approach at this point in time to confidentiality is not great. A few very basic technologies are kept under the radar (methods of torpedo discharge, the Pioneer, etc), and I believe one clerk got prosecuted for passing commercial info to a private firm, but generally speaking, secrecy is a limp unimportant duck with regards to the Navy.

So it appears the Army took that matter more seriously. IIRC there was a lot of petty Victorian era obfuscation that was only recently declassified. Perhaps it is a mark of the measure of the bureaucracies involved.

 Ketara wrote:

Secondly: This game was announced in detail at the RUSI. That makes it as good as public domain. There was very clearly no intent of trying to keep this game secret. It's just likely been passed over because nobody who saw it since (historian or otherwise) was interested in miniature wargames.

Almost but not quite. The RUSI was not an open door. Do you have a copy of the announcement, did it detail all the mechanics or just list them? The only portions relevant to a foreign power would be estimates of unit capabilities, not the existence of a wargame.

 Ketara wrote:

Third: The Edwardian Navy didn't have a general staff. There was some pressure from Admiral Fisher in that direction; but once it got picked up by his hated enemy Charlie Beresford as a stick to beat the Admiralty with; it got completely thrown off the radar. The CID meanwhile, didn't deal with anything like this (in case that's what you have in mind).

That I did not know, but it should not surprise me, the more things change the more they stay the same.

 Ketara wrote:

Fourth: There's been a lot (and I mean a lot) of historical squabbling over the extent of the Admiralty's level of strategic planning, ranging from nothing to some, to differentiating whether it was torpedo related, long gunfire orientated, etcetc. If you had proof that they were squirreling away wargames /secretly to strategise and practise with, that would bring in all sorts of other implications and factors. So if what you were saying was true and based on fact with regards to the Edwardian Navy, there would be a lot of people interested. It's the biggest historical hot potato in that sub-discipline at the moment, and there's a lot of bitterness and egos and competition involved.

No, I have no knowledge of the Admiralty squirreling away wargame simulations. The closest I know to this are the very intensive wargame studies of the US Navy, which we know were in full swing in the 1920's, but we don't know when they started. As these were highly controversial and were used for planning of wars, in particular a war with the British Empire. The wargames might have started earlier thsn the 1920's and it would make sense if they were not only classified for the time, but also remain classified today for diplomatic reasons.

That being said Lanchesters theorem is at its heart a wargaming simulation and the Nelsonic navy was heavily invested into tactical training for fleet action. Whether this occurred purely on paper or was modelled I do not know.

Whet we do know a little bit about are mid-Victorian army tactical modelling. The British Empire had few wars with advanced opponents post Waterloo campaign but there were a number of advanced and open minds that attempted to keep up through reports of foreign wars, armaments technology introductions and raw theory.
A number of these forward thinkers were brought along on the Balaclava campaign, to be completely ignored due to their middle officer rank. I would love to link to this and give you the name of the cavalry Major who had done study on how to pull off successful cavalry charges (i.e when to begin the gallop and in what conditions and against a maximum of how many guns) that Lord Cardigan roundly ignored and didnt survive the slow trot into the guns himself.
I think there is something going on there, and if so it would predate Kreigspiel.

As for de Vauban. This was very clearly game theory, that he did put into practice as the most noted siegemaster of his day, and late in his career Marshal of France. My primary interest in his work was ergonomic, in architectural study, and was there as an aid to reasoning to envisage space, greatly helped by the fact that it was more interesting than the ergonomic sourcebooks I was using at the time.
artwork was surprisingly similar, as was composition. The AJ meteric handbook (there are others) shows safety requirements for structure and minimum effective limits for common purpose, so how narrow can you get away with making a toilet cubicle, how wide must a corridor be for x traffic. All mundane stuff. de Vauban did the same sort of work, but analysed structure for resisting shot and maximising overlapping fire arcs, and calculated spacing to minimise casualties from plunging mortar fire, and eliminating angles and arcs of fire available to an opponent. Both were illustrated throughout.
I noted at the time that the statistics for de Vaubans work would translate directly and fairly seamlessly into game mechanics, just add d6. And while de Vauban was not about random factors, but estimates of average probabilities of aimed fire over time, there is a lot of room to game this as a simulation, and indirect evidence that it was done. de Vauban had a knack for improving captured defences so that the statistics was on his side and the original owners could not make successful investment to get them back. He did so though directly from his architectural and marthematical model, there is evidence of this in the composition of his changes to fortresses he had control over. Clearly de Vauban was at least a statistical model wargamer, using a rigid ruleset to apply his theorems,, and he applied his simulations to real constructs. All we need to find out is if he used siege models, maybe you know contacts in France working a similar field to your own study who have or may take a look-see.

 Orlanth wrote:

I wouldnt assume that, but there is nothing wrong with simple.

I very explicitly didn't for my first responses. =

This is where your appeal to authority fallacy comes in. "I'm so esoteric you peons couldn't possibly understand me'. Dakka OT can handle specialist knowledge more than you might think.
Yep, you need to analyse the data as well as regurgitate it.

Firstly, this isn't OT. Secondly, naval history of this period is my actual professional area of expertise. You don't accuse your GP of appealing to authority when he gives you a professional diagnosis. This is no different. You've admitted and demonstrated very clearly that you don't understand the implications of your own statements. Which is fine. Ignorance isn't a sin.

It might wise not to walk into a court of law and start telling the judge that he's 'blind to the pertinent facts' about law though. As an opening statement, it's quite aggressive and warrants evidence of some kind to justify it.

So it appears the Army took that matter more seriously. IIRC there was a lot of petty Victorian era obfuscation that was only recently declassified. Perhaps it is a mark of the measure of the bureaucracies involved.

You'd be surprised. As late as the early 1890's, strangers could wander around Woolwich Arsenal with reasonable impunity. It wasn't until post-Boer war the British Army really tightened up. The Cardwell reforms helped, but it was still a very loose organisation in most regards.

Almost but not quite. The RUSI was not an open door.

Okay. Stop. It was a members only club for physical access but it still published papers and proceedings that were presented (like this one, shown above); and they were lodged at the British Library on deposit for open public access. I believe a number of the other deposit libraries also got copies (the Bodleian definitely).

No, I have no knowledge of the Admiralty squirreling away wargame simulations. The closest I know to this are the very intensive wargame studies of the US Navy, which we know were in full swing in the 1920's, but we don't know when they started. As these were highly controversial and were used for planning of wars, in particular a war with the British Empire. The wargames might have started earlier thsn the 1920's and it would make sense if they were not only classified for the time, but also remain classified today for diplomatic reasons.

Right: so you read something about American wargaming twenty years later, and are wondering aloud as to whether or not the Americans could have started miniature wargaming earlier. That's cool. In answer, I've never read anything about them miniature wargaming there, but that's not my forte and I couldn't say for certain. The American Navy at that time was immensely underfunded, so I doubt they'd have expended money on physical models. Then again, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that one of them might have played King Hall or Jane's game and then gone home to develop their own version privately (like Sims and Scott on gunnery).

Even though I think the categories you have used to interpret all this are anachronistic, and overly reductionist in order to dismiss earlier examples so only your discovery counts, what you have found is excellent and I do appreciate seeing the pictures of these documents and the peek inside the life and times of George Fowler King-Hall.