|
|
Post by Malchor on Jun 8, 2020 7:03:27 GMT -6
Appendix N is a long list, and it is related to AD&D. What if we paired this list down by staring with Appendix N material that is directly rated to Chainmail's Fantasy supplement.
Clearly we know of the following due to direct mentions in the Fantasy Supplement:
Michael Moorcock's Elric of Melnibone (pre-1971), which consists of the original six novelettes appearing in Science Fantasy from June 1961 to December 1962, plus four novellas also in Science Fantasy from June 1963 to April 1964, plus periodic short stories such as 1967's "The Singing Citadel."
Poul Anderson's Three Heart and Three Lions is called out for the Troll. The book potentially influenced other creatures as well, e.g., Lycanthropes. (Side note, giants in Three Heart and Three Lions turn to stone in sunlight much like trolls in Tolkien). The Broken Sword (1954) may be an influence for invisible elves. Anything else form Anderson's?
J.R.R. Tolkien's The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings.
Robert E. Howard's Conan.
What other authors' work are direct influences or more or less clearly "and other fantasy writers" that still tie-into the what Chainmail's fantasy supplement is about? (e.g., a conflict that can be played out on the table top): Edgar Rice Burroughs would fit, but does Fritz Leiber or Lin Carter; who else?
Note, simply being in existence before Chainmail is not the only qualifier. I loved the Harold Shea stories by Sprague de Camp and Fletcher Pratt, but they do not seem to have had a direct influence on Chainmail.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Jun 8, 2020 10:12:23 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Malchor on Jun 8, 2020 15:55:39 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Jun 14, 2020 19:12:24 GMT -6
Little Wars.
|
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on Jun 15, 2020 9:34:29 GMT -6
It's anachronistic, but at first glance I'd be inclined to add Tony Bath's "Ancient Wargaming." It's a compilation of his rules for ancients, his Setting up a Wargames Campaign booklet, and his notes on the Hyborian Campaign. I believe some or all of those were printed in Society zines and newsletters, but I don't know whether those were before or after Chainmail's publication. I remember reading somewhere that Gygax at least was familiar with the Hyborian campaign and read its newsletter.
|
|
|
|
Post by Malchor on Jun 15, 2020 12:24:49 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Malchor on Jun 15, 2020 12:26:45 GMT -6
It's anachronistic, but at first glance I'd be inclined to add Tony Bath's "Ancient Wargaming." It's a compilation of his rules for ancients, his Setting up a Wargames Campaign booklet, and his notes on the Hyborian Campaign. I believe some or all of those were printed in Society zines and newsletters, but I don't know whether those were before or after Chainmail's publication. I remember reading somewhere that Gygax at least was familiar with the Hyborian campaign and read its newsletter. Wargaming influence of the rules is way off where I was going with the topic. Perhaps a different thread? |
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on Jun 15, 2020 22:15:54 GMT -6
Quite true, and probably worth a different thread, but I'd also point out that Bath's rules weren't what interested Gygax, and I'm not even sure if he would have ever had access to them in the first place. It was Bath's fiction narratives of his campaign, which is not quite the same thing.
Edit: And by the same token, Little Wars is probably off the list since it's a set of rules, but I would certainly put Floor Games in there. I'd have a hard time believing that Gygax or Perrin had never read it, or 'got' it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on Jun 16, 2020 10:59:01 GMT -6
It's occurred to me that the literary inspirations for Chainmail might be more varied and difficult to pin down than those for Dungeons & Dragons.
First of all, there are the mass combat rules which, to my understanding anyway, is the oldest layer. Certainly some of the historical works mentioned would have been direct influences. Rules and play reports from other games would have been a direct influence, which as Malchor points out probably deserves its own thread. Then there were the models available to use in medieval games, which is probably the single most direct influence. I've read that if you look at the special unit types given rules in Chainmail, and then look at the ranges available from model companies at the time, it's pretty much a 1:1 match.
I doubt much if any literature directly inspired the mass combat rules for Chainmail. You either have the models to run medieval battles, in which case the rules will follow suit, or you don't, and they won't.
The Man-to-Man rules might be a little different, because the disintegration of the larger game into skirmishes also implies a move toward more narrative game scenarios. Not a lot more narrative, but scenarios can now easily involve more personal objectives like, "Your figures need to get into this building and grab the objective. Hey look, in that room you found the treasure store; do you risk getting sidetracked to pilfer it? Oh no, someone caused a stampede of cattle through the street!"
Whether this layer of Chainmail was directly influenced by any literature or film, beyond the basic urge to host swashbuckling fights on the table, who knows.
The Fantasy Supplement I think is the only layer where we can truly pin down traditional literary precedents. Law and Chaos can be traced, orcs and ents can be traced, and so on. I think at this level, the play reports of other games, included Gary's own involvement in the Diplomacy community, still had a very strong influence. It was here that you could read about people creating or reconstructing fantasy worlds, describing scenarios that went beyond simple set piece battles, often strung together into campaign narratives that focused on the heroics of individual characters (largely given life in the telling by being made up after the fact).
|
|
|
|
Post by Malchor on Jun 16, 2020 16:08:06 GMT -6
The Fantasy Supplement I think is the only layer where we can truly pin down traditional literary precedents. Law and Chaos can be traced, orcs and ents can be traced, and so on. I think at this level, the play reports of other games, included Gary's own involvement in the Diplomacy community, still had a very strong influence. It was here that you could read about people creating or reconstructing fantasy worlds, describing scenarios that went beyond simple set piece battles, often strung together into campaign narratives that focused on the heroics of individual characters (largely given life in the telling by being made up after the fact). This was the intended focus, the Fantasy Supplement. In the other thread that Zenopus pointed to, someone mentioned some historic books and Mike Mornard rounded it out, so I tossed them in for completeness. |
|
|
|
Post by angantyr on Jun 17, 2020 23:46:07 GMT -6
I never understood why Ashdown and Ffoulkes were used as references for medieval arms and armor. Those were quite dated, and full of Victorian era hallucinations. And it's not as if more current and up to date references did not exist - Blair's "European Armour" along with Oakeshott's "Archaeology of Weapons" and "Sword in the Age of Chivalry" were all published before 1965, and yet are still considered foundational works even today. Granted there is room for updates - certainly Blair's work could use such, since much more material has been found since its 1958 publishing - and indeed both of Oakeshott's works have had supplemental sections added. But even if one takes only "European Armour" and "Archaeology of Weapons" as they were originally printed you still will have a solid fundamental understanding of medieval period arms and armor, and avoid such weirdness like "banded" and "splint" mail, and so forth. Its not a big deal I suppose but it's still a bit exasperating... |
|
|
|
Post by rsdean on Jun 18, 2020 3:42:19 GMT -6
It’s possible that has something to do with publishing and book stores in the ‘70s. Public domain works were printed cheaply and widely available in shops. Up to date scholarly references were hard to come by without access to a university library...you couldn’t just order things from Amazon. That’s part of the reason why Oman’s 1st (1880s) edition was on my shelf, and the second wasn’t seen until I went to college...
|
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on Jun 18, 2020 6:29:35 GMT -6
I think there are several reasons.
They were still academic press at the time, which meant limited availability. Moreover, they were British press, which meant even more limited availability in the US. Ffoulkes and Oman had long since had the time to trickle out of large collections and into public libraries and bookshops.
My own expertise isn't in military history, but most of my colleagues' are, and my understanding of it is that while the likes of Blair and Oakeshott might 'still' considered part of the foundational historiography, they would not yet 'become' part of that foundation until the resurgence of archaeological military history in the 70s and 80s—which again was led by British academics, and so wouldn't have really taken hold of American research really until after the 70s, and certainly not the American public.
We have to remember that academia moved much more slowly in those days, and something published in the 60s would have been looked upon as 'current research' even in the 70s.
Edit: a quick scan of editions on WorldCat seems to suggest that the reprints of Blair and Oakeshott befan ca. 1972, which would be right in line with the revival of military history research in the UK in the 70s.
|
|
|
|
Post by angantyr on Jun 21, 2020 1:28:15 GMT -6
Yeah, we are rather spoilt by Amazon and internet in general, aren't we? It also helps to have such a wide-spread interest in historical reenactment, which I think is another key driver, since you get so many folks (myself included) diving into fairly obscure minutia in order to create detailed reproductions of historical "stuff". It's easy to forget, though, that this was in its infancy when Chainmail/D&D was created.
And I should also say that I don't intend to demean Ffoulkes and Ashdown. They did fairly well with what they had at the time, and did not have the wealth of archaeological finds that have cropped up in the last century or so to work with. Indeed, I still find Ffoulkes' "The Armourer and His Craft" to be a useful reference in my library, with a few caveats. But they were saddled with an awful lot of Victorian era prejudices and misconceptions that dimmed their achievements somewhat. For example, the belief that early weapons and fighting techniques were crude/primitive/etc. when in fact they were perfectly honed to the actual demands of their battlefields and in fact significantly more capable than the hopelessly effete techniques of then-modern fencing, which were almost totally divorced from any real combat.
But it is nevertheless vexing that more or less correct information existed well before Chainmail/D&D came out, but was not consulted (even if it is quite understandable as to why). A great many misconceptions about arms & armor persist to this day entirely because of what became popularized by D&D. I know its just a game and it shouldn't bother me, but it still does...
|
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on Jun 21, 2020 16:59:03 GMT -6
It also helps to have such a wide-spread interest in historical reenactment, which I think is another key driver, since you get so many folks (myself included) diving into fairly obscure minutia in order to create detailed reproductions of historical "stuff". It's easy to forget, though, that this was in its infancy when Chainmail/D&D was created. Very good point. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2020 16:41:43 GMT -6
Pretty much the entire hobby of HEMA has sprang up over the four and three quarters decades since Chainmail was published. Despite being based on Medieval combat it's a very modern/new sport like MMA. That's something to think about, indeed. The internet has played a big role in the proliferation of hobbies like HEMA, and while I'm not personally involved in it at any level besides appreciating some videos and books on the subject, I can easily see how we may all be spoiled by living in the Internet Age when it comes to ready availability of info on Medieval Authentic weapons and armor.
(If anyone's interested, a short list of some good HEMA content on Youtube would include personalities like Metatron, Shadiversity, Lindybeige and Schola Gladiatoria.)
|
|
