For those who wargame or set-up dioramas... (1 Viewer)

[HistoryfortheAges]

I don't wargame because my interest lies in replicating history in miniature and not deviating from the factual accounts. When I create dioramas, I try to replicate as close as possible the actual landscape and positioning of the troops as they would have appeared in the actual engagement. I'm curious to know how many of you out there are purists on history or are you just as likely to create a diorama or scene that presents well but, may never have likely occurred in reality?

 

[Spitfrnd]

Interesting question; I guess I must admit to not being a purist on history for a number of reasons. There is of course the problem noted in the old adage that "…history is written by the victors…" so the quest for accurate is frequently quite challenging. Moreover, a factual account is an account of facts by some person who, however well meaning, is imparting his personal impression of what occurred. In battle some impressions can easily be rendered imperfect by the sound, fury, horror, fear, rage, survival needs and general confusion of the scene. Then there is the problem with the observational skills and memory of the observers. All this leads to much variability of results. For example, even in "relatively" simple situations like accidents or acts of crime, you can get wildly varying accounts of the same events, even among trained observers (the FBI School has some great exercises on this). These factors make me wary of the best factual account of any event, especially a battle.

The quest for accurate becomes even more challenging the farther back in time we go. Obviously impressions of modern battles refreshed by video are much more reliable than interviews of survivors said to have been recorded in notes written thousands of years earlier. What in fact was the battle of Marathon really like for example?

So in the best of cases, I think you can come close to reconstructing battles with a reasonable degree of accuracy that varies with many factors. In general, the most accurate representations are probably the beginning and the end of a battle and battles that are more recent than not and with a fair number of accounts by experienced observers in relatively safe positions.

Putting aside the difficulty in being accurate, I am indeed fascinated by not only what happened but what could have happened. Many battles could easily have gone differently with the slightest variation in one or a few small events. I do enjoy pursuing those variations. So I guess I would say I like to explore historically based possibilities using historically accurate resources. Thanks for the fun question.
.

 

[Saber]

I tend towards making up my own dios, as long as there are no shermans storming the Bastille, thats works for me. I tend to agree with Spitfrnds take as creating a perfect or nearly perfect snapshot is extremely difficult. Just examining events like Wittmans last battle there is still some debate on how it went down, I can't imagine trying to get an accurate picture of what really happened at Hastings nearly 1000 years ago. The availability of figures in the correct poses also can be somewhat challenging unless one can cast and paint figures for yourself. I guess for me Wellingtons comment about a battle being like a ballroom dance where the same events are viewed and interpreted differently by the various participants sums up my view. That said, I have a great admiration for those who do painstaking research to try and recreate an accurate historic moment/scene. Collect and let collect it's all good to me.

 

[theBaron]

For me, building a diorama or other scene is separate from a wargaming or counterfactual scenario, but both are equally enjoyable. For a diorama or scene, I want to depict an actual historical event, or show conditions that obtained at the given time in history. For wargaming, the point is to take a battle or some other historical event, and replay it, allowing for the chance elements that went their specific way to go a different way.

On the other hand, in scale modeling, I've done "what-if" work, and for airplane modelers, Luft-46 is a popular genre, to build models of things the Germans were working on but were unable to complete, or bring off the drawing board, by spring 1945.

I guess it comes back to the basic premise of our hobby: Do what you like to do.

Prost!
Brad

 

[Currahee Chris]

I read some books on the subject that I am interested in and slap together some kind of hodge podge of a diorama with all the figures I have. I am not too keen on historical accuracy though I agree with Saber, those of you who spend the time, effort and money in doing historical dioramas are several notches above me in the professional hobbyist ring.

 

[Louis A. Cortez]

I too, just try to put together figures without much accuarcy. Good points made. I will attempt to do more research on my next diorama. But, then again, I am the only one who sees my dios before a taken them down for a new one.

 

[Col. Hesler]

I love to make accurate dioramas. Currently working on a Market Garden diorama with Britain's and Conte's British Paratroopers, as well as a FOV Stug, Germans from Britains and ONTC.