"Create a Dark Ages Europe board?" Topic

There. I said it.

Sure.

Jason
Stafford, VA

There's currently a moratorium on creating new boards.

Never tell me the odds.

Besides, there won't be when this poll runs.

I'm in.

I'm in too.

A good idea!

You see your mistke was not to be rules specific, only that way are you entitled to new boards.

There's currently a moratorium on creating new boards.

Never tell me the odds.

Heh. Because of that reply, I will now vote for the new board.

Include me in.

I'd for for a general D.A
board.

Yep, +1 from me

+1 for dark age!
…um that's before the invention of the lightbulb, right?
;)

476AD to 1100AD ?

Taking it to 1100 doesn't leave much for medieval, does it? What's the basic characteristic of the dark ages? Collapse of central authority, barbarian incursions not turned back at the frontier, development of feudalism as local response to local threats. Christianity versus paganism, as well. The Vikings are the problem in chronology, as they are clearly of the dark ages, and of course their raids and invasions extend beyond 1000 AD. But I think Charlemagne and his successors are the SOLUTION to the problem of the dark ages, and if we must have an arbitrary date I'd make it 800 AD.

I say eradicate most of the existing boards: combine the periods by level of tech and call it good; to hell with academics making wargamers' lives more complex than they have to be.

We already have a "historical wargaming" board ferpetesakes. Enough cross-posting I say.

"Pre-gunpowder weapons" board (from 1 Million Years BC to 1300 AD).

"Black powder weapons" board (1300 to late 19th century AD).

"World Wars" board (from Franco-Prussian war to WW2).

"Cold war to current affairs" board.

The non-historical boards can remain as-is….

A Dark Ages board? Sure!

Al | ravenfeastsmeadhall.blogspot.com

Sure, just to be agreeable. ;^)

With 1100 as the cut off, wouldn't that put the 1st crusade figures in the dark ages and all crusades after that in the medieval? Then we would probably have to have a crusades board to keep all of them together. Me thinks we be gettin' way too flippin' picky.

Sure

+1 vote.

And let's have another board to discuss the inability to start new boards…..

The 'dark ages' were in the middle ages, i.e. medieval.

So it's bit like having an Overlord Board in the WW2 section?

Have to go along and say yes.

Just Visiting, now here comes the academic in me. A competent historian can make a strong case for the Seven Years War being a world war, i.e., fought over large portions of the globe with coalitions of armies.

Wrong "period", though. Since we are advancing through and beyond black powder, the "first world war", a k a the Seven Years war, does not fit….

What's the difference between "Dark Ages Europe" and "Medieval"?

Yes, go for it.

No! Too many boards already. Its not like the Medieval Boards are high traffic like Naps, there's plenty of room for the Dark Ages in there!

I'm English so I see the Dark Ages turn Medieval in 1066.

However, really it is more like the First Crusade (a Medieval idea prosecuted by Dark Age soldiers)..

It stems from an assertion of Papal hegemony. Almost certainly as a result of the crusade, heraldry becomes widespread in Europe. Because of the numbers of people involved, contingents are segregated by language and origin. In these ways the Medieval world is born.

Its not like the Medieval Boards are high traffic

You could always rename the boards 'Dark Age & Medieval' and maybe have 2 galleries, one for Dark Age and one for Medieval (if people want to post more in tune to their theme).

For me Dark Ages are all 'Fall of Rome' stuff – 400, 500, 600 AD – so well within the ancients period.

By the time we get to norman conquests and viking apolcalyses, its all light again as far as the history goes.

Once the Franks establish an Empire, we are into what I would call ' the Feudal period' rather than 'the Dark Age period'

no need for a board on that basis

I would be more inclined to suggest merging the Ancient and Medieval boards for practicality. Few scholars agree on the demarcations of the periods under consideration. Post volume is not especially high on either board.

The vast majority of TMP members that have either selected "Ancient" or "Medieval" boards as "Zones of Interest" have also selected the other. Introducing another board would only increase cross posting without changing who is reading content.

This sounds like a solution looking for a problem.

I second religon's very sensible motion.

You could always rename the boards 'Dark Age & Medieval'

However, since the "Dark ages" is just another term for early medieval period, that would end up being a bit redundant (since it would mean the same as "Early medieval and medieval board").

I would rather recommend naming the ancient, medieval and renessaince boards so that the dates are included in the names. Would make things clearer for everyone. Eg. something like this:

- Ancients discussion (up to 500 AD) message board
- Medieval discussion (500-1500 AD) message board
- Renessaince discussion (1500-1700 AD) message board

I say eradicate most of the existing boards: combine the periods by level of tech and call it good

I suggest the Pre-atomic raygun era and the Atomic raygun era.

You could always rename the boards 'Dark Age & Medieval'

However, since the "Dark ages" is just another term for early medieval period, that would end up being a bit redundant (since it would mean the same as "Early medieval and medieval board").

Except that it is only your opinion that Dark Ages means Early Medieval, Griefbringer. I already explained why I don't agree. But by all means say why you think differently.

"Medieval" comes after "Antiquity" and begins at the Fall of the Western Roman Empire, so the Dark Ages are the "Early Middle Ages" (in French: "le Haut Moyen Âge")

What happens after the Early Middle Ages, is the "Feodal" period.

And then the last part is the 14th-15th centuries, er… how d'you call it in English? In French it's called "le Bas Moyen Âge".

Of course there are differences between countries. In England the Dark Ages ends in 1066, in France it's c.1000.

AFAIK the usual scholarly sub-division of the medieval period in the English language is as follows:

- Early middle ages (roughly 500-1000 AD)
- High middle ages (roughly 1000-1300 AD)
- Late middle ages (roughly 1300-1500 AD)

Thanks Griefbringer.

Funny thing, the end of the Middle Ages also depends on countries. Most of us think it's 1492 because of the discovery of America. I heard that in Spain it's 1492 because of the "Reconquista"? And it is 1453 in Greece?

"AFAIK" …I had to Google it to understand :-)
I love such English short words! My cat makes exactly this sound when I catch it and it's not happy about it! ;-)

The 'usual scholarly sub-division' is a bit of a fake since the PC term Early Middle Ages was morphed backwards to cover the Dark Ages …

Of course even revisionist scholars acknowledge the Renaissance starts in the early fourteenth century with Giotto and is over by the Council of Trent …

Ah well .. we live and learn … Canute: an English king of the High Middle Ages … Piero Della Francesca, Paolo Uccello, Sandro Botticelli: Florentine masters of the Late Middle Ages …

I think we should have a Dark Age message board for roughly 1200-800 BC.

The medieval board, OTOH, doesn't seem to have enough traffic to justify a split.

It's quite clear that wargamers see the Dark Ages as distinct from both Ancients and Medieval, regardless of what classification history would apply.

To a wargamer it tends to work out this way:

Ancients: Chariots, hoplites, elephants, Greeks, Romans and whatnot.
Dark Ages: Hairy barbarians with axes & swords raiding villages, etc.
Medieval: Knights, Crusaders, Jousting, Longbows, Crossbows, etc.

They are clearly thought of as visually, tactically and characteristically distinct, despite actual history.

Think about it; if someone says they're looking for "Dark Ages" figures, we know they're not thinking about Greece, Rome, or any of their opponents. We also know they're not thinking of Richard the Lionheart, etc. We know they mean "Hairy barbarians with axes & swords raiding villages."

I can see it as a subset the Medieval boards (or maybe there's a way to make it a sub board of both Medieval and Ancients, so either way you see it.
Might even be worthwhile to add a Post-Roman subboard as well.

The point, after all, isn't historical accuracy, it's convenience for wargaming discussion.

It's long overdue. Git'r done already.

I know many wargamers who've happily moved beyond the 19th century concept of a 'Dark Ages' and call it the early medieval period – one swallow does not summer make. Or maybe by calling it so we aren't wargamers ;-)

Ok, I buy Parzival's definition of "Ancients" versus "Dark Ages" versus "Middle Ages."

I can see it as a subset the Medieval boards (or maybe there's a way to make it a sub board of both Medieval and Ancients, so either way you see it.

I suppose that makes sense. Flames of War is visible in both the WW2 and Modern boards, after all, so the forum software can handle it.

I suppose that makes sense. Flames of War is visible in both the WW2 and Modern boards, after all, so the forum software can handle it.

Excellent point – and a good solution.

According to some people, most of Europe was in an age of enlightenment. A release from the oppression of Mediterranean civilization.

It doesn't matter if you bathe or not. It doesn't matter if you deface public monuments and allow all infrastructure and institutions to fall apart. It doesn't matter that not even the leadership knows how to read any more. All that matters is that you are free to imagine your own reality. To re-write history, ignoring the documented reports of first hand witnesses. And to be free to re-define the original meaning of the word "civilized", while you're at it.

Wait a minute. It sounds as if some modern historians are re-shaping Dark Age people in their own hippie image:

TMP link

Dan

I'd have to vote no on this. For me, the Dark Ages is synonymous with Early Medieval, so a new board serves no purpose.

As a PhD in Medieval History with a specialty in what is properly termed the Early Middle Ages these days, I was about to get all pedantic.

But Parzival has hit the nail on the head. Let the conventions of the hobby define the genre, not a sense of what is "historically correct."

BTW, the preference for the "early medieval" terminology does not come from political correctness. If it were, it would be the first time Anglo-Saxon males would count as an oppressed minority. It has to do with rejecting a model of history based around moralizing ideas of "Progress" current in the 19th century.

But is the convention in wargaming really 'Dark Ages' more than 'Early Medieval' these days?