The Limits Of Vision

The Case Against Darth Vader As Luke’s Father

When Star Wars burst upon the public that summer of 1977 no one was quite sure what had hit them, but from the opening sequence of the Imperial Star Destroyer pursuing the Rebel Blockade Runner everyone knew Lucas had finally gotten it right – space was big, really BIG. It was also just as clear that audiences wanted more, and it was obvious they would get more as the villain, Darth Vader, spun off into space alive to fight another day. However, all was not what it seemed.

It turned out that Vader was not the villain we believed him to be and in the years between Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back much had changed in that Galaxy Far Far Away…

Following the old Hollywood adage of “Bigger is Better” The Empire Strikes Back was exactly that: giant walking tanks, vast panoramic vistas, more complex space battles and a plot twist that threw everyone for a loop. No longer was Luke Skywalker on a journey of discovery, a quest to avenge his father. Instead he now faced the prospect of having to kill his own father in order to save his friends and free the galaxy.

This was the plot twist to end all plot twists and nothing else Lucas did in the original films matched this for shear audacity. Darth Vader had not killed Luke’s father – Darth Vader was Luke’s father.

Many fans were not happy with this new development and they still aren’t. They pointed out all of the problems this created for the story’s internal logic and Lucas went to great lengths to bend the story to fit this new development.

Luke: Obi-Wan! Why didn’t you tell me? You told me Vader betrayed and murdered my father.

Ben: Your father was seduced by the dark side of the Force. He ceased to be Anakin Skywalker and became Darth Vader. When that happened, the good man who was your father was destroyed. So what I have told you was true…from a certain point of view.

Luke: A certain point of view!

Ben: Luke, you’re going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our point of view.

Compare this tortured logic to the clean and straightforward prose of the first film:

Luke: How did my father die?

Ben: A young Jedi named Darth Vader, who was a pupil of mine until he turned to evil, helped the Empire hunt down and destroy the Jedi Knights. He betrayed and murdered your father. Now the Jedi are all but extinct. Vader was seduced by the dark side of the Force.

Clearly, Vader and Anakin are not the same person, despite all of the ipso facto arguments to the contrary from Lucas himself. Of course it is his story to tell and he may tell it in any way he chooses. That he changed his mind more than once during both the writing of the screenplay and the actual filming is well documented.

In an early draft of the first film the main character is a Jedi-bandu Knight named Mace Windy, and during the filming in England Lucas decided that Obi-Wan should “die” on the Death Star rather than escape with the other rebels. (And, as we now learn, that idea was first suggested to Lucas by his then wife, film editor Marcia Lucas.) Such changes are quite common on a film shoot – it is part of the creative process. And yet, by making Vader the father of Luke, I believe Lucas has limited both his vision and his story options. Furthermore, by doing so he has taken the easy path to resolving his story.

Revenge Is Not the Jedi Way 

After finishing The Empire Strikes Back Lucas began work on the final film of his Star Wars trilogy entitled The Revenge Of The Jedi. This was not simply a working title, as films often use, but in fact the final release title. This is evidenced by the fact that 20^th Century Fox went to great lengths to persuade Paramount to change the title of their up coming film, to be released the same summer as Jedi, from Star Trek II The Revenge Of Kahn to The Wrath of Kahn. Paramount obliged Fox only to have Lucas change the title of his film from Revenge Of The Jedi to Return of The Jedi. It had been pointed out to Lucas that revenge was not the Jedi way.

This name change actually better suited Lucas’ revised story line for Luke was not seeking revenge for his murdered father but rather redemption for his father who had fallen from the true faith.

The idea of a son seeking revenge for the murder of his father is as old as story telling itself. The most famous example, but certainly not the only one, is Hamlet by William Shakespeare. But where as Hamlet must decide if the king is truly guilty of his father’s death, as the ghost of his father has informed him, Luke has no such dilemma. Luke knows he must kill Vader in order to free the galaxy from the imperial tyranny his father has made possible. Luke’s dilemma is quite simple: Is he strong enough to kill his own father? Lucas though turns that convention on its head.

Hamlet is tortured by the fear that the ghost has misled him and the king is in fact not guilty. Luke is tortured by the thought of having to kill his own father in order to fulfill his destiny. As we all know Luke opts to not kill his father and instead trusts that his friends will save the day by destroying the Death Star and the Emperor along with it.

But is Luke’s dilemma as monumental and tragic as Lucas makes it out to be? Is it in fact easier not to kill your father than to kill him? Did Lucas give his alter ego Luke Skywalker the easier path? 

I believe Lucas missed an opportunity to tell a far richer story, one that more fully reveals the essence of the Jedi. Had Lucas but remained true to his original idea, that Darth Vader was not Luke’s father but indeed than man who killed him, what then would Luke’s dilemma have been?

The Discipline of the Jedi

To not kill one’s own father despite his crimes is no great struggle. The children of the Nazi leaders still loved their fathers even as they abhorred and repudiated the crimes they had committed. Indeed it would have been more significant had Luke actually killed his father because of his crimes, Luke’s sense of justice overriding his love of and longing for a father to be proud of.

Of course that is not what happens – Luke spares his father, offering himself as a sacrifice to the Emperor and in so doing shows his father the path to redemption.

However…

Let us suppose for a moment that Darth Vader was not Anakin but rather, as originally envisioned, his betrayer and murderer.

Imagine now Luke’s dilemma as he hovers over a prostrate and defeated Vader in the throne room of the Death Star. With one stroke of his light saber Luke can avenge his father and free the galaxy. With one simple strike…and yet Luke choose not to strike.

To not kill the murderer of your father when you have both the means and the rights to do so — now that takes discipline.

A classic theme in literature is that of the child seeking to avenge the untimely and unjust death of their parent.

But in telling the story this way, where Luke at last, after three films, has Vader at his mercy yet shows him mercy, is that not more poignant? He does not exact a pound of flesh, does not avenge his father with blood but instead honors his father by adhering to the highest values and discipline of the Jedi order. Thus does Luke not only “out Jedi” Darth Vader, but also his father and Ben as well. And in that moment Vader has a flash of realization,  a true moment of Zen satori. Now he sees clearly a path to redemption for himself, by siding with the son of the man he betrayed and against the Emperor who seduced him.

Thus do we see the limits of vision, a vision that, in the first film, was seemingly limitless but by the end of the second film was constrained to follow a path that ultimately proved to be less satisfying and less fulfilling.    What might have been… what might have been…

Crimes Against Art or the Creative Process

Many have accused George Lucas of committing artistic crimes (or is that Crimes Against Art?).   Jar Jar Binks is the most often cited example, but there are others: the poorly written and delivered romantic dialog between Anakin and Amidala, or envisioning Anakin so young when the story begins. (An older Anakin would have allowed for a wider range of actors to play the part and puberty could have been used as the point beyond which the Jedi believe a Padawan is too old to begin training.) Or the almost comical exclamation of pain by Darth Vader when he learns of Amidala’s death.

With the exception of Jar Jar Binks these moments and concepts are indeed all clunkers, but minor ones in light of the real crime. If George Lucas is guilty of any crime it is of not having enough confidence in himself and his original vision for Darth Vader and Star Wars.

In his original vision Anakin (or as he called him then, Annikin) and Obi wan Kenobi are forced into exile, hiding from the elite forces of Darth Vader who are hunting down any surviving Jedi. It is while Anakin is in hiding that Luke is born and that explains Ben’s comment: “I haven’t gone by the name Obi wan since oh, before you were born.”

By making Darth Vader the father of Luke and Leia rather than the murderer of Luke’s father, Lucas broke with himself and in so doing limited the scope of his vision. This one change became the wellspring from which all of the problems we perceive in the Saga issue forth.

Now we say “crimes” but of course what we are really talking about is the creative process and the choices every writer faces as they stare at the blank page before them. Looking at the early drafts of Star Wars and the voluminous background notes it is clear to see that from the very start Lucas had a grand vision and he succeeded in incorporating many of those earlier ideas and characters in his six film saga. No doubt Lucas feels that his vision was widened after the success of Star Wars in 1977, and that the changes he made to his original concept have only served to enhance the story he is telling.

Then again…

The original vision of Darth Vader, of Annikin, of Luke and Leia, that vision leads down a far richer path that can only be tread in our mind’s eye. Perhaps in twenty years or so another hot young director will come along and pull a “JJ Abrams” on Star Wars. As Abrams did to Star Trek (using time travel to create an alternate reality for the original crew and thus allowing that franchise to push the “re-set button” and begin again) so a plot device might be found to re-set Star Wars on a different path, a path where Darth Vader does kill Annikin Skywalker, and where Luke must decide between avenging his father by killing Vader or remaining true to the ideals of the Jedi Order and sparing Vader.

Who knows, perhaps that hot young director will be the son of George Lucas himself, come to redeem his father’s original vision. Now that would be life imitating art and poetic justice to boot.

Sources Consulted

The Art Of Star Wars – Edited by Carol Titelman, Story & Screenplay by George Lucas c1979

The Empire Strikes Back Notebook – edited by Diana Attias & Lindsay Smith, Story by George Lucas, Screenplay by Lawrence Kasdan & Leigh Brackett. c1980

The Making Of Star Wars by J.W. Rinzler c2007

The Force Behind Star Wars by Paul Scanlon, Rollingstone Magazine, May 25, 1977

The Cult Of Darth Vader by Gavin Edwards, Rollingstone Magazine, May 19, 2005

Screen Chatter: Forget whales, let’s save George Lucas by Brenden West, The Evening Sun May 25, 2008

The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark by William Shakespeare, as found in The Portable Shakespeare by Viking Press c1944

Cleopatra - The Obsession With Beauty

Antony And Cleopatra by Adrian Goldsworthy c2010

Of all the women of ancient history, Cleopatra is the best known. Who has not heard of the Queen of the Nile?

Most people “know” she was, perhaps with the exception of Helen, the most beautiful woman in the world, but was she? Putting aside the vagaries of just what constitutes beauty, what did this most famous of queens look like?

It is difficult to depict charm, or intelligence, or quickness of wit in sculpture, and Temple paintings are so highly stylized as to be useless as a guide to physical appearance.

The historian Plutarch tells us:

In itself her beauty was not absolutely without parallel, not the kind to

astonish those who saw her; but her presence exerted an inevitable

fascination, and her physical attraction, combined with the persuasive

charm of her conversation and the aura she somehow projected around

herself in company, did have a certain ability to stimulate others.

Writing one hundred years later, the historian Dio comments that Cleopatra “was a woman of surpassing beauty, and at that time, when she was in the prime of her youth, she was most striking; she also possessed a most charming voice and a knowledge of how to make herself agreeable to everyone.”

Is it any wonder then that the brightest stars in the Hollywood firmament have sought to play this fabled queen who combined both brains and beauty in a most powerful combination. Vivien Leigh, Claudette Colbert, Elizabeth Taylor, and Kim Cattrall are but a few who have assayed the role, and even now a new film is being readied for Angelina Jolie to star in as Cleopatra.

No doubt Cleopatra would be flattered to have such beauties portray her on stage and screen.

However…

Allow me to quote at length from the new book, Antony And Cleopatra by Goldsworthy:

“Absolutely nothing is certain. Cleopatra may have had black, brown, blonde or even red hair, and her eyes could have been brown, grey, green or blue. Almost any combination of these is possible. Similarly, she may have been very light skinned or had a darker more Mediterranean complexion. Fairer skin is probably marginally more likely given her ancestry. Greek art traditionally represented women and goddesses as very pale, and fair skin seems to have been part of the ideal of beauty. Roman propaganda never suggested that Cleopatra was dark-skinned, although this may simply mean that she was not exceptionally dark or simply that the color of her skin was not important to her critics.

At no point will we need to consider Antony’s appearance at similar length and this should remind us that the obsession with Cleopatra’s looks is unusual, and not entirely healthy. Not only is there no good evidence, but also there is something disturbing about the desire to base our understanding of her first and foremost on her appearance. Cleopatra was not another Helen of Troy, a mythical figure about whom the most important thing was her beauty. She was no mere object of desire, but a very active political player in her own kingdom and beyond.

Cleopatra was born and raised in the real and very dangerous world of the Ptolemaic court in the first century BC. When her father died in 51 BC, she became queen. Auletes had planned for his son and daughter to rule jointly. Cleopatra had other ideas.”

-from Antony And Cleopatra by Adrian Goldsworthy, c2010 pp.128-129

Goldsworthy has hit on the crux of the problem, and like the historian Michael Grant, reaffirms for us just how little we know for certain about Cleopatra's appearance, and, more importantly, how little it really matters.

As is often the case, what a person does matters far more than what they look like. In the end, Dr. King put is most succinctly and eloquenty: we must judge a person by the content of their character and not the color of their skin. And when it comes to character, Cleopatra is one of the most fascinating characters not only of her time, but of anytime in human history.

For more about Cleopatra and the world in which she lived, see:

Antony And Cleopatra by Adrian Goldsworthy, c2010 ISBN: 978-0-300-16534-0

http://www.amazon.com/Antony-Cleopatra-Adrian-Goldsworthy/dp/030016534X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1290106917&sr=1-1

Playing At War

Hannibal, Scipio and the Art of War Gaming

"My mother bore a general, not a warrior." - Publius Scipio Africanus

Recently my grandson and I have been playing the war game Commands & Colors designed by Richard Borg and published by GMT Games of California. We actually started playing scenarios from the game two years ago when Mr.K was 7 years old, and while he did understand the mechanics of the game then, his tactical finesse is now, at age nine, much better. No doubt two years hence it will be better still.

Of course we are both avid, if irregular, game players – Risk, Axis & Allies, Conquest Of The Empire, Battle of the Bulge, and Stratego are all favorites. Indeed I started playing war games at about the same age as Mr. K, though I began with Joseph Morchauser’s book How To Play War Games In Miniature. His simple yet well thought out rules brought order and purpose to the chaos that had marked our playing with toy soldiers.

From there I moved on to Map & Counter war games, like Blitzkrieg and The Battle Of The Bulge, then being published by Avalon Hill. In college Panzerblitz was all the rage while at the Armor Officer Basic Course the games of choice, in the evening over beer and pizza, were SPI’s Firefight and Avalon Hill’s Kingmaker (about the War of the Roses). 1

Since then games have taken a back seat to life in general. My family has been courageous over the years, indulging my love of games as they have, and they actually seem to enjoy playing Space Hulk, the Aliens inspired tabletop game from Games Workshop. However, it was the arrival of the grandson that brought games back to the forefront in a big way.

So it was, that last week Mr. K and I were playing Commands & Colors, re-fighting the battles of the Second Punic War between Carthage and Rome, when we came upon the scenario for the Battle of Dertosa, in Spain, between Hannibal’s brother, Hasdrubal, and the Scipio brothers Gnaeus and Publius.

To their great credit, GMT includes a brief but detailed description of each battle, giving the historical outcome and challenging the players to do as well as the original generals. Mr. K, who always plays the Romans, was intrigued by the name Scipio, and I mistakenly said, “Oh, Publius Scipio goes on to defeat Hannibal at Zama and take the name Scipio Africanus.”

Actually, this is correct, just the wrong Scipio.

The ancient Romans were a practical and pragmatic people, to a fault, except when it came to naming their children. In this they suddenly displayed a total and frustrating lack of imagination. Sons were often named after their father, still a common practice today, but so too were daughters, all of them. Thus you had families with three daughters all named Julia or Agrippina. This is probably why the Romans had slaves. Imagine asking one of your three daughters to pass the olive oil. You might starve before it was decided just which Julia you were addressing. 2

So it is that historians, both professional and amateur alike, must be careful when it comes to the Romans and figuring out just who is who.

In the case of Dertosa, it was the father and the uncle of the future Africanus that led the Roman army in that particular battle. The younger Publius (and future Africanus) had campaigned at his father’s side several years before this and had actually saved his father’s life at the Battle of Ticinus River in 218 BCE. Seeing his father surrounded by the enemy, the younger Publius ordered his troop of cavalry forward to the rescue – but the legionaries refused to move. Scipio rode alone into the enemy and his troop, thus shamed by his courage, joined him in the charge that saved the elder Scipio. It is said that the elder Scipio offered his son the corona civica (the Civic Crown) one of Rome’s most revered honors, awarded to those who save the life of a fellow citizen, however the younger Scipio declined the honor.

All of this got me to thinking about just what a remarkable fellow Scipio Africanus really was.

The Cornelian family, of which the Scipio are one branch, were perhaps the oldest and most storied family in all of Roman history, a distinction due in no small part to the members of the Scipio house. They believed in the “res publica” or ‘the public thing’ which is to say fulfilling one’s duty to the Republic in both peace and war.

Scipio’s father and uncle were both gifted generals who won several important victories in Spain against the Carthaginians. 


Indeed, the 2^nd Punic War was something of a family affair for while the elder Scipio brothers, Publius and Gnaeus, were fighting in Spain against the Hamilcar brothers Mago and Hasdurbal Barca, young Scipio, now just twenty years old, was part of the Consular Army in Italy moving to confront Hannibal, the third Hamilcar brother. Scipio was assigned as a Military Tribune in the 2nd Legion, a typical position for a young Roman aspiring to a career as a Senator.

Although the elder Scipio brothers were enjoying success against the Hamilcar brothers in Spain, the Romans in Italy were being consistently out maneuvered and out fought by Hannibal. After weeks of chasing the Carthaginian army around the country side the Romans finally brought Hannibal to battle, but on ground of Hannibal’s choosing. This proved decisive for although the Romans had a much larger Army, Hannibal inflicted upon the Romans the worst defeat in their history.

In one afternoon, at the Battle of Cannae, the Roman Consular Army of 85,000 legionaries was utterly destroyed. Losses were staggering – over 48,000 dead, including one of the Consuls, a Proconsul and 80 Senators, as well as 18,000 legionaries taken prisoner. The remainder, some 14,000 odd survivors, were scattered about the countryside. Among them was the young Publius Scipio.

Pause, for just a moment, and consider the staggering nature of this defeat. Imagine if we in the United States received word from Iraq or Afghanistan that we had lost 48,000 soldiers killed in a single afternoon. And imagine if those losses included not only 80 members of Congress, along with their sons, but also the current President and the former President. Of course for our modern military the loss of 48,000 soldiers, while grievous would still represent less than 10% of our total military manpower. For the Romans however, this was a loss, in a single afternoon, of more than 25% of their armed forces (not including the casualties among their Latin Allies). Added to the losses suffered in recent previous battles and it seemed that Rome’s days were numbered, and in single digits. Is it any wonder then that many of the surviving officers, all sons of noble families, considered abandoning Rome and seeking safety by fleeing overseas? However, a few officers were not ready to give up. One of them was young Scipio. 3

We do not know anything about Scipio’s movements during the actual battle, but his conduct after the battle is well known and quickly became part of Scipio family lore. Scipio and Appius Claudius, another young Tribune, rallied the survivors and held them together by sheer force of will. At the same time Scipio moved decisively to check the desertion of his demoralized fellow officers. He forced each of them in turn to follow his example by swearing an oath, to Jupiter, that he would never desert the Republic nor allow anyone else to do so on pain of death for himself and his family.

In Spain, Scipio’s father and uncle enjoyed continued success against the Hamilcar brothers until, four years after Cannae, their Spanish allies abandoned the Romans and, now outnumbered, the Scipio brothers were defeated and killed in separate battles. This left the majority of Spain under the control of Carthage. The few survivors hung on for dear life and waited for help from Rome. 4

At the age of 25, Scipio was given command of the Roman Army in Spain with the rank of Proconsul even though he had never been elected Consul. This was an unprecedented move, but Scipio proved worthy of such trust and used his authority wisely. Indeed, Scipio well understood the seemingly modern military concept of “winning the hearts and minds” of the populace as a means to winning the war.

“Scipio was in Spain when a captive was brought to him. She was a maiden of noble birth, whose beauty drew all eyes to her. Scipio had this woman returned to her fiancé, and made the couple a marriage gift with the gold, which her parents had brought as a ransom. The tribe was so overwhelmed by his conduct that they gave themselves over to the cause of the Roman people.” – Frontinus, Stratagems 5

As Shakespeare would later write in Henry V, “…for when lenity and cruelty play for a kingdom, the gentler gamester is the soonest winner.” Henry V, Act III, sc. 6

Scipio also appreciated the need for good intelligence and meticulous planning. His victories in Spain were the very model of superior planning and the astute application of military intelligence. Scipio defeated Hasdrubal Barca at the Battle of Baecula and, two years later, Mago at the Battle of Ilipa.

Now with Spain firmly under Roman control and his father and uncle avenged, Scipio returned to Rome where he was elected Consul (even though he was still too young at age thirty) by promising the people that he would take the war against Carthage to Africa itself.

In 204, after his year in office and now just 31 years old, Scipio was granted the province of Sicily to govern as Proconsul. Although Sicily was the ideal base from which to strike at Carthage, what the Senate did not give Scipio was an army with which to do so. Thus blocked by his jealous rivals in the Senate, Scipio set about raising an army of volunteers and training then for the invasion of North Africa.

Once again Scipio was meticulous in his planning, gathering intelligence about the enemy and training his army to the peak of readiness. When he at last launched his attack it was with a well-trained, well-armed and well-supplied army against which the Carthaginians had little chance.

Scipio moved quickly, destroying two Carthaginian armies by surprise night attacks. Carthage entreated for a truce, but this was likely just a ruse to buy time so Hannibal could return from Italy and lead the defense of Carthage himself. With Hannibal safely home Carthage resumed the war. True to his nature, Scipio was ready.

In 202 BCE, the Roman Army (including two legions of survivors from Cannae) met the larger Carthaginian Army at Zama. Although Hannibal’s forces included a large contingent of elephants, the Romans for once outnumbered the Carthaginians in cavalry, thanks to Scipio’s Numidian ally Masinissa. This would prove decisive for when the elephant charge failed to break the veteran legionaries, the Roman cavalry chased their Carthaginian counterparts from the field. Now deprived of their cavalry, the Punic infantry proved no match for the Romans. In the end, looking at the number of casualties suffered (which were heavy but not catastrophic) it was not the Carthaginian Army that was destroyed at Zama, but rather the Carthaginian will to resist. Scipio had won his greatest victory and in so doing he had not only avenged the defeat at Cannae but, more importantly, he had restored Roman honor.

Scipio, now called Africanus, returned to Roman where he celebrated a Triumph and, in 194, was elected Consul for the second time. Now just 41 years old Scipio hoped to be named Proconsul of Greece, but it was not to be. His rivals in the Senate led by Cato the Censor, stymied Scipio at every turn.

Scipio had committed the one unforgivable sin – he had risen too high too fast, and if the Romans were a practical people they could also be an extremely jealous people in equal measure. Scipio had achieved more in his 30 plus years than most other Senators would in two or even three lifetimes, and that was something they would not abide.

Scipio did eventually serve in the east with his brother, but he remained mostly in the background lest it be said that any Roman victories were his doing and not that of his brother. There was also the incident of his son, who was taken prisoner by King Antiochus. It was said that Scipio feigned sickness on the day of the battle at Magnesia to avoid taking the field against an enemy who had so recently show him mercy by releasing his son.

Scipio died not long after returning from the East. He had survived Cannae, and out maneuvered all of his battlefield opponents, but in the end he could not out maneuver his rivals in the Senate or survive their machinations against him. He was exiled to Liternum, south of Rome, where he died in 185 BCE.

Scipio’s legacy did survive him, most pointedly in is daughter Cornelia and her sons Tiberius and Gaius, known to history as the Grachii. 6

Of all the stories told about Scipio Africanus, the one I like most is the one about the time Scipio and Hannibal meet in Syria many years after Zama. As told by the Roman historian Livy, I quote it in full:


Africanus asked who, in Hannibal's opinion, was the greatest general of all time. Hannibal replied, "Alexander ... because with a small force he routed armies of countless numbers, and because he traversed the remotest lands"

Asked whom he placed second, Hannibal said, "Pyrrhus. He was the first to teach the art of laying out a camp. Besides that, no one has ever shown nicer judgement in choosing his ground, or in disposing his forces. He also had the art of winning men to his side."

When Africanus followed up by asking whom he ranked third, Hannibal unhesitatingly chose himself. Scipio burst out laughing at this and said, "What would you be saying if you had defeated me?"

"In that case," replied Hannibal, "I should certainly put myself before Alexander and before Pyrrhus -- in fact before all other generals!"

This reply, with its elaborate Punic subtlety, affected Scipio deeply, because Hannibal had set him apart from the general run of commanders, as one whose worth was beyond calculation. (Adrian Goldsworthy, In The Name Of Rome, c2003, page 69)

Perhaps this story isn’t true, but it should be.

Upon hearing this, Mr. K smiled and said, “So, they were friends after all.”

Yes, I replied, in a way they were. And with that, we returned to the game.

NOTES

1 Map & Counter War Games enjoyed their ‘golden age’ during the 1970’s and 80’s with the leading publishers, Avalon Hill and SPI releasing a dozen or more games each year. However, the hobby fell on hard times in the 90’s (thanks in large part to video games) and it is only now enjoying a modest resurgence in popularity. Hasbro purchased Avalon Hill while SPI’s library went to Decision Games in Bakersfield, California. Avalon Hill’s biggest sellers, Panzerblitz and Squad Leader, ended up at Multiman Publishing in Canada.

2 Roman naming conventions are challenging to say the least. See Adrian Goldsworthy’s 2009 lecture at the Kansas City Public Library for his amusing comments about Roman names and the confusion caused by asking Julia to “pass the salt please.” The Podcast of the lecture may be found here:

http://www.kclibrary.org/event/adrian-goldsworthy-how-rome-fell

3 Ancient Historians are notorious for inflating numbers of both total combatants and casualties in any given battle, so all such numbers must be approached with caution. Losses at Cannae may have been as low as 30,000 dead and as high as 50,000 depending upon who you trust. Goldsworthy in his book, The Complete Roman Army, places Roman dead at 45,500 infantry and 2,700 cavalry.

With regard to what percentage of the Roman Army these losses represent, again the numbers depend upon where they come from and who they are counting. P.A. Brunt estimates the losses at 23% of mobilized Roman manpower, but he is only counting Roman citizens and the Latin allies. In terms of total Roman military might, both citizens and allies, the losses at Cannae might be as high as 40%. As we do not know total manpower reserves for the allies in Italy, Spain and elsewhere it may be a percentage that is impossible to know for certain. I am indebted to Romany Army Talk Forum Member Pompieus for this information.

http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=29794&start=40

4 The Celtiberian allies were paid to abandon the Scipio brothers despite their generous and evenhanded treatment of the local tribes. Buying allies, or buying off enemies played to the Carthaginian’s strength as a mercantile empire. It is a technique the Romans themselves would learn to use in later years.

5 See Chronicle Of The Roman Republic by Philip Matyszak, c2003, p102.

6 The story of Cornelia and her two sons is well known. See:

Famous Men Of Rome by John H. Haaren & A.B. Poland, c1904, p126

Also, Chronicle Of The Roman Republic by Philip Matyszak, c2003, p127. The photo caption relates Cornelia’s wish “to be renowned, not as the daughter of Scipio, but as the mother of Tiberius and Gaius.”

Indeed, Cornelia was considered the very epitome of Roman motherhood. The story was told of how one day a close friend of Cornelia’s paid her a visit to show off some newly acquired jewelry. After displaying her finery, the friend asked Cornelia, “Now, let me see your jewels.” At that very moment Cornelia’s two sons returned home. She called them to her and placing her arms around them Cornelia replied to her friend, “Here are my jewels.”

Sources Consulted

In The Name Of Rome by Adrian Goldsworthy, c2003 ISBN: 0-297-84666-3

The Complete Roman Army by Adrian Goldsworthy, c2003 ISBN: 0-500-05124-0

Cannae by Adrian Goldsworthy, c2001 ISBN: 0-304-35714-6

Hannibal’s War With Rome by T. Wise & M. Healy, c1999 ISBN: 1-85532-980-8

Famous Men Of Rome by J.H. Haaren & A.B., Poland, c1904 ISBN: 1-59915-046-8

Chronicle Of The Roman Republic by P. Matyszak, c2003 ISBN: 0-500-05121-6

A Dictionary Of The Roman Empire by M. Bunson, c1991 ISBN: 0-19-510233-9

The Art of War Great Commanders of the Ancient & Medieval World 1500BC--AD1600 edited by Andrew Roberts, c2008 ISBN: 978-1-84724-259-4

Links of Interest

Roman Army Talk Forum -- an excellent source for information on the ancient Romans and lively discussions of same.

http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/

GMT Games -- The publisher of the Commands & Colors games and one of the better sources for traditional Map & Counter style war games

http://www.gmtgames.com/c-6-commands-colors-ancients.aspx

Commands & Colors: Ancients -- A third party site devoted to the Commands & Colors systems with many scenarios beyond those that come with the game.

http://www.thewargamer.com/ccancients/

Two feature films about Scipio Africanus:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067719/

http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0063611/

The 1937 version, commissioned by Mussolini, is available on DVD

http://www.amazon.com/Scipio-Africanus-Hannibal-Fosco-Giachetti/dp/B000065VVG/ref=sr_1_1?s=dvd&ie=UTF8&qid=1282520964&sr=1-1

Horsing Around In London

The Blues & Royals

This regiment was formed in 1969 by the amalgamation of the The Royal Horse Guards (the Blues) and the 1st Royal Dragoons. The Horse Guards trace their lineage to a regiment raised in 1650 by Oliver Cromwell. In 1651 they joined with the Earl of Oxford’s regiment, The Oxford Blues, whose blue uniform color the current regiment has retained.

The Blues & Royals have participated in every major war fought by the UK including both World Wars and, most recently, Desert Storm in 1991 and the current conflicts in SW Asia. Indeed their capture of the Regimental Eagle from the French 105th Infantry at the Battle of Waterloo is commemorated by a small embroidered eagle worn on the left uniform sleeve by all members of The Blues & Royals. (You can just make out the sleeve eagle on the Guardsman in this photo.)

In the photo above Stefan is posing with the “Box Man” from The Blues & Royals. The Box Man, in either the Foot Guards or the Household Cavalry, is the Guard who stands on duty at White Hall, Horse Guard Parade and Buckingham Palace in London. To be The Box Man is the most sought after duty by a Guardsman and only the best looking Guards and horses are selected for this duty. A Box Man spends one hour on post, or, on extremely cold days, one half hour.

Patience is a virtue for both Guardsman and horse as they deal with a seemingly unending stream of tourists, some of who are less than polite to the Guards. In the case of this photo, the horse seems to be asking, “Can I go now?”

There is a tradition that those wishing to give the Guardsman a “note of assignation”’ will place that note on the Foot Guard’s bayonet scabbard or inside the top of the Horse Guard’s boot.

So Stefan, did you slip the Guardsman a note?

See:

The Guards - Britain's Household Division by Simon Dunstan c1995 ISBN: 1-85915-062-4

The Guards text by John de St. Jorre photos by Anthony Edgeworth c1981 ISBN: 059-54376-1