Ethics? Is there a place in wargaming for such a thing?

Like so many I was bored last night and somehow ended up watching a podcast called Veteran Wargamer. The podcast is run by an American bloke called Jay Arnold and seems well put together, well it does to my Luddite eyes. The latest podcast was with a group of what were described as wargaming luminaries?? including Jasper Oorthuys, Sam Mustafa, Annie Norman and Ilan Mitchell- Smith. Obviously I have heard of Sam Mustafa and have always been impressed by his rule writing. Jasper Oorthuys is a leading light with Wargames Soldiers and Strategy, as for the other two, Im sorry but I haven't a Scoobies who they were, but then I'm probably not down with the kids as it were.

Anyway the discussion was regarding ethics in wargaming???

 Basically it revolved around the age old argument of what people game and why certain periods are avoided by certain gamers. I think we all possess a period in history that we have deliberately avoided simply because we had either been a part of the history that was to be wargamed, we had family that had taken part in the conflict or simply the memories were just too fresh for it to be trivialised by a game with toy soldiers. The discussion group touched upon the whole idea of wargaming and whether it was something that in its own right was the correct thing to hobby, especially if you subscibe to the idea that it glorifies war.

  I would like to think that anyone who knows me would realise that ethics isnt something that bothers me too much where wargaming and painting soldiers is concerned. I certainly wouldnt buy and paint up figures meant to depict genocide etc, but that wouldnt be an ethical issue, because it simply wouldnt be right on so many levels.

There were however two things that struck me about the podcast, one was that the group felt there was a need to discuss the subject at all, especially given the makeup of the wargaming population who are in the vast majority knowledgeable regarding military history and understanding of the actual horrors of war better than most laymen and therefore pretty decent people, well except where dice throwing is concerned.  The second was why do people nowadays feel the need to look too deeply at what is an innocent pastime almost desperate to find issues where none exist. 

 In this day and age of pseudo victimisation, distress at innocent mis-speaking [ is there such a word?] and people being cancelled left, right and centre the last thing wargaming needs is a group of people creating a movement stopping us playing with toy soldiers.

As for this group of luminaries I would refer them to Robbie's basic law of life which is, 

 ''if it looks like a turd and smells like a turd then it will probably be one.'' 

  Its never steered me wrong yet.*** 

                              
And now onto more upbeat things. I am still making steady progress with my Wars of the Roses small project and have completed a few more items to add to my growing band..

Like a lot of wargamers of a certain age we forget just what we have painted, well I clean forgot that I had created a few bits and bobs that are perfect for my Never Mind the Billhooks project.

Perry's Margarette of Anjou was discovered hiding in my draw of Italian Wars figures, along with a couple of other bases. They have been seconded to my army. Well except the Queen, who will have to stand around looking angry as the Yorkists hopefully batter the Lancastrians.

                                   A 'spare' Perry light gun, perfect for the ward of Kildare.

I also completed my second unit of mercenary pike which was a relief. I know they are an anachronism as Landsknechts didnt really come to the fore until the 1490's but they will do. 

Because I like Pete's Flags my final ward will belong to the Earl of Kildare which gives me a great excuse to add a further unit of Kern. I also intend to field a unit of Gallowglass and Bonnachts to fill out the ward. Clearly not historically accurate but I like the idea it could have happened. 

 Regarding history, I am currently reading the history of the Wars of the Roses by Hugh Bicheno which is a very good couple of books, except at the end of book one he totally poo poos what happened at the Battle of Towton, especially Fauconberg's famous trick with his Yorkist archers. You know the one, where he orders his longbowmen to fire one volley at the Lancastrians using the wind and the snow to antagonise the Lancastrians to recklessly fire off all their arrows in reply, famously they fell short. 

 I always loved that idea, anyway it never happened! 

  Discuss please.

 Secondly he pours coldwater on the Lancastrian army as it marched towards London allegedly full of wild Scots and Northerners intent on rape and pillage, again he believes it never happened! Having seen his evidence it does make for a good discussion. Perhaps the Veteran Wargamer could create a podcast such as that. 

*** I know it will be surprising to some but I actually attended a university where I was 'taught' ethics. I came away with the clear understanding that if the end justifies the means then its fine as long as one can handle the means and the end.