Dawn Service, Anzac Day

“Dawn service gnangarra 01” – Photograph by Gnangarra. Licensed under CC BY 2.5 au via Wikimedia Commons, click the image to view license. Frame Effect added by Mike.

A History Lesson: The ANZACs

This Saturday marks the 100th anniversary of a seminal date in Australian History. April 25, 1915 was the day the Gallipoli campaign began, part of World War I, “The War to end All Wars”. Intended to drive the Ottoman Empire out of the First World War with a single bold move, it degenerated into an eight-month trench warfare stalemate.

Allied Casualties included 21,255 from the United Kingdom, an estimated 10,000 dead soldiers from France, 8,709 from Australia, 2,721 from New Zealand, and 1,358 from British India. Those Australian and New Zealand numbers might not seem all that high, but as a percentage of the populations they were massive.

Great Britain at the time had a population of 40 million, France slightly more, British India more than 315 million. Australia’s casualties were only 41% of the UK total, but the UK’s population was eight times ours; New Zealand’s losses were only 13% of those of the UK but they had only 1 twenty-third or twenty-fourth of the population. Relative to our populations, Australian casualties were almost 33 times the British rate and New Zealand’s, over 30 times as high.

But, while those figures may help to explain why the date was chosen for our national remembrances – the public holidays on which Aussies and Kiwis commemorate all those members of our respective militaries who “served and died in all wars, conflicts, and peacekeeping operations” and “the contribution and suffering” of those who have served – they don’t explain why this particular date became so significant within the cultural zeitgeist.

That happened within days of the landings at Gallipoli. Prior to that time, both countries were Dominions of the British Empire, and very much saw ourselves as being British. This was the moment at which we started to think of ourselves as being Australian and New Zealand, with our own national identity and character. Some of that character was forged in the trenches, and relayed home by newspaper accounts; more was forged there and relayed home by the letters of those serving; and still more was forged by the common experience of those who were still at home, but who had friends and family in service.

The seeds had been planted, according to some, in the Second Boar War, while others might point to the first defeat of a sporting team from the Home Country by Australia in 1882, which led to a British Newspaper, The Sporting Times, running an obituary which announced the death of English Cricket, and that the ‘body’ would be cremated and the ashes taken to Australia. Before the 1882-83 series began, the English Captain had vowed to “regain those ashes”, and the phrase led the British media to dub the tour “the quest to regain the Ashes”. It only remained to solemnize the ongoing rivalry in the form of a symbolic representation of “The Ashes” for the name to become a permanent association of the sporting rivalry between the two – and the sporting heritage shared by both. Some days, I personally think one, and on other days, the other.

Either way, the landings at what is now known as Anzac Cove on April 25 welded together many aspects of the general Australian character such as mateship, initiative, ingenuity, larrikinism, resilience, determination, and egalitarianism into a common culture.

In fact, the ANZACs (Australia & New Zealand Army Corps) fought with such gallantry and good spirits that there arose in their enemies of the day and their leadership a great respect. Despite parity in armament and an attacking posture, those 44,000 Allied lives were lost, and 97,000 wounded, at the cost of an estimated 86,500 Turkish casualties. After the war, Kemal Atatürk, the Turkish General in Command at Gallipoli wrote:

“Those heroes that shed their blood, And lost their lives,
You are now lying in the soil of a friendly country.
Therefore rest in peace.

There is no difference between the Johnnies and the Mehmets to us where they lie side by side, Here in this country of ours.

You, the mothers, Who sent their sons from far away countries,
Wipe away your tears, Your sons are now lying in our bosom, and are in peace.

After having lost their lives on this land they have become our sons as well.”

These words have been inscribed in memorials in all three countries – Australia, New Zealand, and Turkey.

The war is full of stories of desperation, good humor, and bravery on both sides of the battlefield (as most wars are, if you count Gallows humor), but most of all, of mutual respect between the ANZAC troops and the Turks, and behavior that both sides can respect and honor.

To Australians and New Zealanders, this was the conflict that defined us in many respects, in the eyes not only of ourselves, but of other nations.

Other conflicts have had the same effect on other nations. While the seeds of their national character were laid down in the American War Of Independence, it can be argued that the defining moment in which those seeds blossomed was in the Civil War. This conflict wasn’t directly about slavery, though some historians might argue otherwise; it was a clash of two opposing interpretations, two ideologies with a common foundation. It was about economics and politics and society in a broader sense; The Anti-Slavery aspect was just one manifestation of these differences.

It’s not the only way that a national identity can emerge, but it’s a reasonably common one, simply because the first thing that any emerging nation has to do in a lot of cases is establish its independence – against the will of whoever claimed the territory previously.

The RPG Relevance

In some measure, these thoughts came to mind as an outgrowth of the material concerning the societies of races in an RPG campaign that I completed and posted on Monday (New Beginnings: Phase 7: Skeleton), and that’s why this is a subject of importance to players and GMs.

Every sentient race should have at least one event per society that defines them as a culture. It might not be a war, but it might be. Whatever it is, it should have multiple effects on the society. There should be folk sayings that have their origins in wartime events. There should be heroes, and sometimes there need to be villains. There needs to be tales of triumph and stories of tragedy and heartbreak, and yes, a few scary ones thrown into the mix. There will be statues, and remembrances, and memorials. Some places will have their names changed to reflect events, other places will give name to the event such that the place-name itself becomes an iconic representation of the event. The popularity of certain names will rise and others fall. Cuisines and spending patterns can change. The list is endless.

But most of all, national characterizations can emerge, and those in turn can affect everything else about that culture, and should have that effect in almost every case.

Traps, Tips, and Tricks

One of the hardest aspects of doing this as a GM or as a writer is making the character that emerges consistent with the “story of the war”. It is very easy for the correspondence between them to seem forced and artificial.

This is often because the wartime incidents that are supposed to reflect the national identity that the GM wants to ascribe to the post-war population focus entirely on just one aspect of the overall character. People aren’t like that; they have a touch of everything about them. That means all aspects of the national character, and aspects of the former national character that the new traits are to replace. Certainly, one trait can be dominant, or can make the difference, but ideally, you want all the incidents to reflect the overall personality profile with cumulative effect – like the cricketer who caught and threw back enemy hand-grenades for twelve hours in one ANZAC trench, and who represents several of the qualities that are now associated with the “ideal” of the typical Aussie Character.

It can be useful to remember that there are few individuals on the battlefield; instead, each person will have several others nearby, who can serve as mouthpieces for other aspects of the iconic persona that you want to portray.

Another useful tip to remember is that there will be some romanticization of events afterwards, the better to fit the legend. If something feels a little forced, or feels like it’s “too good a fit” (and hence seems artificial), try telling the story to someone else, then getting them to repeat it back to you while you take notes. Use their version and modify it to include any aspects of the persona to be projected that the story overlooks. Repeat (with different people) as often as necessary. With some practice, you can reach the point where you can be your own audience for such revision.

Probably the biggest mistake that GMs make when they attempt this is obvious predetermination. “This is the story of how Green became the color of death” – deciding the personality trait to be infused and writing a story or plot outline for that specific purpose. I generally find that I have much better results if I decide the overall personality that I want to display, compare that with the personality profile that existed previously, and construct an incident in which the two produce differences in the outcome. In other words, instead of highlighting one particular element of the “new” personality, I focus on highlighting the distinctiveness relative to expectations, and the rest more or less takes care of itself.

Creating more than one representative incident in this way and then cherry-picking amongst them to choose those which highlight a particular aspect of the “new” personality creates “historical anecdotes” that seem natural and still convey the desired message. What’s more, it enables specific targeting of the emergent personality profile desired because it focuses attention on the things that make that profile distinctive.

In Remembrance

And every time you use this technique, I hope that you spare an idle moment to remember the servicemen and women of your nation who have served their countries, just as I think of the ANZACs and their successors in the Australian Military at such times. You might not agree with everything or anything that they have done – some don’t – but every recruit joined up to serve in the hopes of bringing about a better tomorrow (even those for whom service was involuntary – that just transposes someone else’s vision of “better” into the picture). Respect the intent, even if you don’t agree with the execution, purpose, politics, or tactics.


Discover more from Campaign Mastery

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.