Am I turning into a Grognard?

[argie]

Oh, and about Thebans: was Epaminondas, general of Thebas, who used for first time the "oblique order" (I don't know the correct term in english, sorry) as the standard setup for his forces in battle. He was never defeated until he dies in battle. The oblique order was a proto-Schwerpunkt, giving to the thebans a great capacity of manouver in battlefield.

Ariel

[Mark IV]

When Philip (Alexander's father) surveyed the bodies of the Sacred Band after the battle of Chaeronea, where they had died to the last man, he shed tears and said:

"Perish any man who suspects that these men either did or suffered anything that was base."

This is variously translated, but comes out about the same.

This implies that, even if the ancient Greeks were a little more casual about sexual preferences, there was still some social stigma attached, probably more to do with its open practice. Philip was impressed enough with their ferocity to waive the social consequences.

Thanks for sending me scurrying to the books!

[Guest Babra]

The theory behind the Sacred Band was that men would fight harder when their loved ones were beside them. Although the relationship had a homosexual aspect, it was much more than that. They were, in every sense of the word, "companions", having a life-long bond. As mentioned, they remained undefeated until Chaeronaea, which is somewhat astonishing as Lacadaemonia (Sparta) was the only state to field professional soldiers.

To equate them to those creatures who haunt the bars with the painted out windows is to do them an injustice.

[Lee]

Perversion is perversion, regardless of what it's cloaked in.

If the guards were noted for their bestiality but they also happened

to fight hard and all got killed, would that excuse their

repulsive conduct or make it more acceptable or more normal?

Anyone who has been in heavy combat will tell you that there is a deep

bond of friendship and closeness with your buddies that can't be

equaled in any other environment. You don't need to feel some sick

sexual attraction to them to fight like a lion beside them. Thank

God such a system doesn't exist in this country.

[Fionn]

Hey Lee, gay-bashing isn't allowed on this forum.

I certainly don't want to hear people using terms like "bestial" on this forum./ Whatever your private opinions on this are I think it would be better not to bring your personal opinions on this matter onto the forum as:

a) discrimination against any group based on race, gender or sexual preference just shouldn't be "on" and

a good portion of forum members no doubt are offended by such comments.

c) it is off-topic in a major way.

Anyways, mark IV. yes, you're absolutely right. And you're quote from Philip is spot on too. Colour me impressed that you were able to get the correct answer so quickly.

[Seanachai]

a) discrimination against any group based on race, gender or sexual preference just shouldn't be "on" and

a good portion of forum members no doubt are offended by such comments.

I'm a newbie/lurker, but I'm with the Fionn on this one. I am offended. Take your own fears about your latent tendencies and peddle them around some other board. And, I think, there's bound to be some future thread with 'Fionn Fionnworthy's: You know you're a Grognard when...'

------------------

After witnessing

exceptional bravery from

his Celtic mercenaries,

Alexander the Great

called them to him and

asked if there was

anything they feared.

They told him nothing,

except that the sky might

fall on their heads

[Fenris]

....In the voice of the fat comic merchant off The Simpsons.....

If any of you gentlemen would take your eye's off some guys toe nails you will note that the article linked in Iggi's 2nd post states that the MG34 fired a 7.62mm round.....This is infact incorrect, it fired a Mauser 7.92mm projectile.

Fen

[hnh3_cm]

Pointing out truths is often called 'bashing' in these politically correct, yet morally incorrect, times. There are, of course, good and bad ways to point out truths.

God requires me to love all people as I love myself. Ignoring and condoning certain immoralities because of public opinion (a highly subjective thing) is not the way to show love. Love is pointing someone towards the truth {not a subjective thing, despite claims to the contrary), no matter how painful that truth may be. We've all had to face unpleasant facts about our own behavior at times, and know we are the better for it.

This will be my only post in this thread, so don't expect a discussion on my part. I don't 'bash' gays, nor will I condone their deviant (a fact, even if all 6 billion people on Earth felt otherwise) behavior.

I have no problem with this thread as historical discussion, and I would hope any more posts could be confined to such. If not, the thread should be quickly locked.

---------

I'm not a preacher, but I play one on the Internet.

[Guest Big Time Software]

hnh3_cm - whether or not you condone homosexuality is not an appropriate topic for this forum, so zip it.

Besides, everyone knows that the only acceptable form of discrimination is based solely on the computer wargames a person plays or does not play! Come on, get your priorities straight!

Lots of to show I am kidding, so no one gets .

Charles

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 05-15-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 05-15-2000).]

[Berlichtingen]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>...when the "King Tiger" tanks come rumbling through the forest.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I do believe (according to that fine film ) that the battle was fought in a desert

[hnh3_cm]

Charles-

Why did you single me out! I didn't bring up the subject to begin with. The homosexuality topic is what is actually off topic (at least for this thread). I was just responding to what I felt were out-of-line responses on both sides of the subject.

Telling someone to 'zip it' is rude with or without a smilie. This is what I was hoping a moderator would prevent happening, not instigating it.

I apologise if I was OT. I don't, of course, apologise for my beliefs. I'm sure you would agree.

Thank you for your time.(and the great game )

[nijis]

It's a pity that this kind of stuff happens to interesting historical threads, even if they do get a bit O/T. Wargaming and military history only work when you can look at war, a pretty emotive subject to begin with, in as value-free a way as possible.

Re, other gay unit arrangements in history, I recall hearing somewhere that the household Companions had a similar arrangement to the Sacred Band, at least after Alexander assumed the kingship. It wasn't linked couples, but individual troopers were encouraged to take lovers from among the ranks. That might just be revisionist history, however. And of course, we have the SA.

[This message has been edited by nijis (edited 05-15-2000).]

[Seanachai]

"This will be my only post in this thread, so don't expect a discussion on my part. I don't 'bash' gays, nor will I condone their deviant (a fact, even if all 6 billion people on Earth felt otherwise) behavior."

Well, you don't seem to have been able to live up to this line, preacher. How many 'deviants' died in the camps, eh? For all your 'god of love' piety, how many would you have stood up for? I'm sure I'm dangerously close to being booted off this board (if not already gone) by replying to this, but I can't shut out the voice in my head saying: "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." And now, unlike yourself, I will cease any further remarks on this topic. Please notice the absence of any smilies, my loving friend...

------------------

After witnessing

exceptional bravery from

his Celtic mercenaries,

Alexander the Great

called them to him and

asked if there was

anything they feared.

They told him nothing,

except that the sky might

fall on their heads

[Bastables]

Oh Bugger!

[Fionn]

Now now guys let's all simply zip it ...

Obviously Seanachai and I have our viewpoints about the viewpoints expressed by Lee and hnh but there's no need for anyone to get too nasty about this and get themselves into trouble.

Seanachai, I will say that your comment about idly standing by is exactly why I DON'T idly stand by when I see such things happening here or elsewhere but I'll also note that Lee, Hnh, so long as you keep your opinions off this particular forum I have no problems with you.

In the same way as I won't express certain OT things here you shouldn't express this particular view either here.

Lastly, whatever your personal opinions... It is estimated that a good 10% of the human population is actively homosexual. This means that probably 10% of forum readers are also and I see NO (underlined) justification for allowing anything on the forum which might upset these men or women.

So, let's just all keep it off the forum ok. Your opinions were made clear and their unnacceptability to myself and some others was also made clear. We've all made our points I believe so let's quit now while no-one has gotten themselves into undue trouble ok?

PS.. Charles' post was obviously an attempt to cool the situation down. I'd take it in that vein hnh.

P.p.s I agree with Charles that the only type of discrimination which is OK is discrimination based on love for different game genres .

[Joe Shaw]

So ... how about those Dallas Cowboys huh? I figured a little American football reference couldn't be a hell of a lot more off topic than the stuff we've been discussing Not that I mind, it's been interesting and informative ... mostly.

Berlichtingen, the movie I was referring to, if I have the title right, was "Battle of the Bulge" with, among others, Robert Shaw (no relation) playing the SS Panzer leader. The tanks definately were rumbling through the forest. You may be thinking of "Patton" which had the same tanks (M48's?) playing the part of German tanks. In either case it drives me crazy. At least for SPR (and Kelly's Heros) they tried to mock up something that resembled a Tiger.

Joe

------------------

"Son," says I to him, "you're a Dragon. And a Dragon ACTS like a Dragon or he doesn't act at all."

Smrgol, Dragon

[Mark IV]

I think some special regard for forum topics is merited because CM is a WWII wargame. As such, it deals with "Nazis" and allows the gamer to identify with the Germans.

We are under special pressure and scrutiny because of these value-laden connections. Wargames as a genre, and those allowing identification with "Nazis" in particular, have taken some heat lately. We should limit the political opinions, because we may be judged without our knowing it by the politics expressed on this forum.

CM is a potential magnet for unwanted attention from both sides of the political spectrum. It is worth some restraint not to fan those flames, to mix metaphors.

This isn't Usenet and 1st Amendment protections needn't apply here (since the CM forum itself was not constitutionally guaranteed and is privately maintained). Nor is this the place to change the world.

PS: On historical subjects it's better to maintain objectivity about all kinds of contemporary values. They're all dead, anyway.

[Spook]

I think this is an appropriate time to "switch gears" and get back to the topic's theme: GROGNARD.

Because at this juncture of time, the term invokes more than a little controversy amongst wargamers. Some regard being defined a "grognard" as a badge of honor. Others regard grognards as pariahs.

I haven't been privy yet to the latest issue of PC Gamer with Bill Trotter's article on wargamers. But the hearsay from other posters on other forums & web sites is that the article poses the question on whether "historical" wargamers are too divisive a community. It's also been inferred that "grognards" are messing up the computer wargame market due to incessant complaints & demands for improvement. (Anyone who can relate article details, please feel free to jump in now.)

Whatever the various viewpoints that people have here on grognards, I think it first needs to clarified that there are DIFFERENT kinds of grognards, and that not all of these need be incessant anal-retentive whiners. Let's review some categories:

1) The "turn-based" grognard (TBG); has no love for any real-time execution of a "historical" war subject, on his premise that real-time strategy (RTS) games are just clickfests. Will argue that only turn-based games can allow "deep strategic thought." RTS fans will blast the TBG's in turn as being "retards" who can't think on their feet.

2) The "hex" grognard (HxG). Grew up with boardgames stretching back to the 1960's, and thus feels comfort to see the battlefield outlined and subdivided into hexagons to allow rapid perception as to which battlefield hexes are worth fighting over or moving through.

3) The "destiny" grogard (DsG). Will insist that any replay of a historical battle MUST stick to the historical outcome, even for battles like Austerlitz, Antietam, or Midway for which the battle's circumstances don't lend to repeatable results.

4) The most controversial, of course, is the "detail" grognard (DtG), and even this grognard category will break into wide-ranging subcategories. The more intense DtG's are ones who can recite the ASL Manual without having to crack it open, who will insist that nationality differences in latrine discipline must impact combat operations, who insist that the Death's Head Hussars would never pick their noses unless the sun is directly behind them (so no one can notice their poor hygiene).

5) One further category that is less mentioned is one I'm a firm member of: The "consistency" grognard (CG). A consistency grognard doesn't always gravitate to high detail or minimal abstraction, because for higher-level (operational/strategy) games, some abstraction is unavoidable. But if a big INCONSISTENCY is spotted in a game, then the whole thing MIGHT collapse like a house of cards. If I were to see bazookas regularly cause Panther's to blow up in flames at over 1500 meters range in CM, then the hell with the rest of the game. (I'm NOT saying that's the case, it's only an example.)

So with some grognard categories outlined, perhaps you all would like to debate on these or add some more? Take note that I haven't rendered judgement on any of the above grognard categories, I only have outlined what I have perceived over the years.

Carry on.

[This message has been edited by Spook (edited 05-15-2000).]

[argie]

You forgot the 6th category: the quietly 10% gays grognards

SORRY! SORRY! SORRY!

I can´t avoid it

Ariel

[Berlichtingen]

Warning! Achtung! This post is ON Topic!

The true meaning of the "wargaming" Grognard is... wait for it... long time wargamer. The wargaming "Old Guard."

[Spook]

Hhhhhhmmmmmmmm.......I'm not sure that I agree. (That must make me a "Forum Grog" or FrG, ) But yes, that's been a popular interpretation that grognards (French for "grumbler"?) are "old-time wargamers."

I don't think that all old-time wargamers are necessarily detail-intensive or require hexagons to play a game. I left out "miniature grognards" as an added category who would insist that only miniatures games, to this day, can truly recreate "wargames." Maybe that's because miniatures games are the best venue for gamers to actually insult each other face-to-face to to buy each other beers.

But from my view.....if a young wargamer exists who's only just started playing wargames, but is ready to cite umpteen historical references to argue a historical issue, then he has the same right to hold up his head include himself in the GROGNARD fold. Whether he's actually proud of it or not is his own outlook.

[Guest Babra]

I humbly step forth as the very paragon of the grognard, however I don't believe I fit any of your categories. Every time a new wargame comes out, I first appraise it based on all that have gone before. (CM Rocks by the way). Then I start to pick apart the unrealistic bits.

My grognard's self-actualization goal? Ultimate realism combined with playability. After 25 years of wargaming I'm starting to see light at the end of the tunnel...

[Joe Shaw]

Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm sure the Grognards will ) but I believe the original use of the term Grognard was by Napoleon and was referring to the original Old Guard, his Imperial Guard. The story, IIRC, was that the Guard was grumbling as soldiers are wont to do, and Napoleon referred to them as his "grognards." Wargamers picked it up, as you might expect, and adapted it to their own purpose.

Joe

------------------

"Son," says I to him, "you're a Dragon. And a Dragon ACTS like a Dragon or he doesn't act at all."

Smrgol, Dragon

[Trooper]

If one takes the literal translation of 'grognard' to be 'grumbler', maybe you should equate it with Pedant. I don't see quite if there's a requirement for it to be miniatures gaming or historical gaming, just a set of parameters by which everything can be judged. So, if, on some Star Wars based ASL-type game, some chap decrees that Han Solo's blaster is an RFG-23, a person who came along and corrects him that it is, in fact, a Blastech DL-44 (And it is, by the way) should, I believe, merit the title of 'Grognard'

[Guest Big Time Software]

Uhm, so why is it that everytime I come here to close this thread it gets back onto (sorta) topic? But better to close this up so I don't miss another round of totally inappropriate posts.

Just remember. Morality is not an absolute, but rather is totally subjective to the time and culture being discussed. So anybody coming at *ANY* topic as if they have an absolute answer based on religion and/or cultural heritage has already lost the discussion IMHO.

Steve