Riccardo Masini’s Historical Simulation and Wargames dragged me back to memories of my undergraduate degree, but not to my history classes. Instead, this book reminded me of studying philosophy, and for that reason I believe it to be a work of philosophy first and all other things secondary. Its opening chapter is virtually pure philosophical discussion on the theory of games, including the kind of specific definitions of terms and ideas one would expect, and while other chapters do at times conform in shape to more historical analysis across the wide expanse of the book’s scope its wanderings have an altogether more philosophical flavor. This is not a criticism, merely a description - an attempt to outline what the book is so readers can set their expectations.
However, while Riccardo presents his philosophy well - with the caveat that nearly all works of philosophy can be hard to grok on first reading - I have a confession. Whatever school of philosophy that Riccardo is outlining in this text, I think I'm in the other one - the one that presumably eventually writes equally dense books on why our niche interpretation is correct. My school has no name, I didn't even know of its existence until I was nearly finished the book, but I am certain that in ancient Athens we would be competing for the funds of rich kids with nothing better to do. Again, this is not strictly a criticism, but rather an observation about Riccardo's arguments and how reading this book has shaped my own thoughts. Let me try and explain.
To greatly elide the nuance, the overall structure of the book is five chapters. The first chapter defines the notion of “simulation game” as distinct from other games; the second examines game mechanics while providing (briefly) a history of hobby simulation games; the third examines the relationship between games and history; the fourth considers the intersection of games, designers, and players; and the final chapter considers challenges and flaws in modelling history in games (sort of). That is the general outline, but the actual discussion ranges widely and arguments crop up in unexpected places throughout the book. The experience of reading Historical Simulation is more akin to wandering through a landscape, each section distinct but also sharing elements with the others you’ve traveled through, rather than a strictly structured march from one argument to another. I don’t know how I feel about it - I would probably have preferred the more structured approach, but the wanderings do help it lean more into its philosophical side, especially as repetition can help with some of the book’s more opaque arguments.
I'm not prepared, after a single reading, to explain in detail the philosophical argument contained within Historical Simulation and Wargames but I believe I can trace its outline.
The book’s perspective is focused most clearly on games and game mechanisms. The author has a wide knowledge covering decades of different games and that is on showcase across the book. Countless examples of games that are representative of a point the author is making are scattered throughout the text. While the jargon and frequent asides to obscure games might prove challenging to those entirely new to the subject of historical wargaming, those who have dipped a toe or more in will be pleased to see old favorites and intrigued by mention of titles entirely new to them. Readers will find far more emphasis on design principles and mechanics than they will the history of the hobby, for example.
The work as a whole is very positive on the potential and value of simulation games - I would go so far as to say that it is a cheerleader for the hobby. A core theme is a series of arguments for the strengths and merit of playing simulation games as a way to explore and learn about history. Even beyond that, it suggests that the games themselves are essentially works of historical argument, scientific analysis, and art all bundled into one. It can sometimes feel like it is a briefing document or argument paper whose purpose is to make the case for hobby wargaming to some power that be sitting on the fence - it is firmly placing the hobby’s best foot forward as much as it can.
The games within the text are broadly some of the hobby’s best - little room is made for known failures - and while I would not say that it is trying to convert many of its readers to the hobby, it is arguably trying to help current participants develop a greater appreciation for their leisure activity. Even when games are criticized, the criticisms are minor and there is always room at the end to find a compliment for it - the game may have failed in one aspect, but its fundamentals were still sound and other designers found ways to improve it, for example. Those hoping for an interrogation of hobby wargames flaws will not find it here - it is not totally absent but it is certainly confined to the niches.
This is why I feel that this is a work staking a philosophical position and, as well, that I must belong to an entirely different philosophical school. Rather than nit picking my way through the books nearly two hundred pages, I think a quote from the book’s conclusion will provide the best summary of where Riccardo stands and how my own position differs (emphasis mine):
... we should always keep in mind that simulation games do not tell us what should have really happened, but only what could have reasonably happened if different conditions were verified. The fact that they put us in the concrete possibility of creating those different conditions makes the games truly engaging, but does not detract in any way from the scientific value of their processes or foundational statistics.
In such a context, to a historian those conclusions are if not equally at least comparable important as factual analysis to understand what actually happened, even when taking into account the many biases and distortions getting on the way before reaching such an ambitious goal - biases and distortions which, it should be said, are quite present even in more conventional historiography and even in the vast supply of major sources.
In essence, Riccardo argues for the comparable value of playing wargames to historical research and the publication of works of history. Throughout the book he also reifies the competence of wargames as historical works and frequently equates designers with historians.
I don’t want to dwell on this too long, since I’m reviewing the book not writing my counterpoint to be presented to my illustrious patron, but I have an altogether less positive view of the historical value of wargames. While I am a huge fan of the hobby, I see historical games as only able to reliably capture a small fragment of a historical topic - far less than even a brief history book could do. While wargames have their own strengths, in particular their ability to engage people and convey certain arguments more clearly than via text alone, they are to me tertiary work - meaning that they are generally dependent on the research of established historians. That's no bad thing, many fine popular histories are the same, but I do not rate the quality of research by the average game designer as highly as Riccardo does. As an example, Riccardo highlights the work of Phil Eklund, including praising how he distributes history throughout his game rules. Eklund has made some very fascinating games but is also notorious for his ahistorical screeds where he argues that colonialism was good and many other bizarre historical interpretations. Riccardo does not dwell on this, though, as the book once again puts the hobby’s best foot forward in a manner that I don’t altogether agree with.
If you'll allow me one slight moment of axe grinding. The book has several spelling errors and formatting inconsistencies throughout the text. I don't place this on Riccardo, as someone who is writing a book in his spare time outside of his native language, these are totally understandable. However, with proper editorial support this should have been fixed by the publisher. Given that the publisher is charging $85 for the hardback edition, it is unfathomable that they couldn't have splurged for a thorough copy edit of the text. It's a shame because it gives the work a slightly unprofessional vibe and that is not the author's fault and they deserved better.
I fear that In my conclusions I have given the impression that I did not like Historical Simulation and I want to clarify that while this was not my favorite book I read this year I am very glad to have read it. I believe I probably have quite a few points of fundamental disagreement with Riccardo on how we praise and criticize historical games, but reading his arguments was invaluable for me in terms of better framing my own. Philosophy is not a zero sum game - it is rather one that is vastly improved by disagreeing positions laying out their arguments for everyone to engage with. However, philosophy is also a rather niche subject and not one that lends itself well to dabbling. For that reason (and because it's $85) this is not a book I would recommend to everyone, but if you are interested in arguing the merits and demerits of hobby wargaming there is something in this book to support your position or to inspire your opposition, and what more could an author ask for?