"Geographicaly unlikely" Topic

'ello.

A frequent gripe of Ancients players is out-of-period matchups – Vikings putting the boot into Sumerians, Normans and Romans having it large etc. For the record, I am against them on principle, but do it occasionally by neccesity.

But in some ways a more-jaw-dropping image is provided by geographically unlikely battles. Samurai may well have temporaly co-existed with Wars of the Roses Lancastrians, but such a game is going to have required a rather large Typhoon, or the intervention of some sort of Wizard. I remember having to restrain my giggles at a DBA Tourney where I saw Pacific Islanders bravely battling Poles, and Elephants stampeding though brave Saxon Shieldwalls on adjacent tables.

But where do you draw the line? Carthage never actually fought Macedon, but could have done. A Qin China/Early Imperial Roman battle could have happened if both sides had wanted it bad enough.

Where do you draw the Geographical Line?

Padraig

Padraig I figure non-historical match ups are ok for tournements and such, but amongst your pals (or on your own) surely you can raise enough enthusiasm to complete a matched pair.

I would even go as far as to say that if you want Saxons vs Sumerians you might as well have the wizard on the table and make the most of the fantasy.

Tournaments are not classed on period?

Not all of them

Padraig

Well, I guess historical gaming changes into fantasy when you pit Easter Islanders against the Ottoman Empire

I would draw the line at plausability – i.e. the Romans might (emphasis on the might) have been able to fight the Qin, and Carthage certainly could have fought Macedonia – but there was at least a chance for that based on geography – but setting, for example, the Mayans against the Athenians (same time frame) is the purist of fantasy

None. I figure I bought, built and painted my army and I want to play it. So did my opponent. So let's play. The game. Even if it is my Samurai vs. his WoTR Yorkists. Because that will probably be more fun than my Romans vs. his Gauls for the 20th time.

I wouldn't have a problem with Carthage versus Macedonia or Rome v. Qin.

The wars that could have happened *if the political will was there* are fine.

Mayans versus Romans (Mayan civ died out ~600AD) is serious fantasy, though.

Personally, I just can't get my head round non-historical match ups of any sort.

Its all about history for me, and pitching armies that fought each other historically.

Imperial Romans against Qin is surely ahistorical on purely chronological grounds.

On a similar note of pedantry, Maya civilization didn't die out ca AD 600 – the classical period lasted into the ninth century, and postclassical Maya civilization until the Spanish conquest.

More on topic, arguing about definitions can be fun, but I don't see any practical need to draw a bright dividing line. Historical refights are more historical than generic fights between historical enemies which are more historical than fights between armies that could have but did not fight which are more historical than fights between armies that could never have met. I can enjoy all depending on circumstances.

For tournaments I say anything goes. They are about winning, not about history. Two of the many reasons I don't play in tournaments.

Among friends we set up historical or plausible non-historical. The example of Carthage vs Macedonia works. Easter Island vs, well pretty much anybody doesn't work.

A frequent gripe of Ancients players is out-of-period matchups …

Really? You seem to be claiming that you speak for the majority. That is not the case with the huge number of Ancients players I have gamed with. (See "pauline Kael Syndrome" below…)

As I have said here on TMP ad nauseum, the mere fact that you CAN match Vikings versus Burmese is what makes Ancients gaming so popular, and has lead to the vast number of Ancient armies available.

God bless the Samurai versus Burgundian or Carthaginian versus Norman matchups! The mere fact that they have been possible since Day 1 of Ancients gaming means that a manufacturere can confidently sculpt, cast and market a totally obscure range of figures.
My favorite example is the 25mm Essex Khitan Liao range. In WRG Ancients army lists, this is a killer army. But, who the heck are the Khitan Liao? I don't know, but I faced them twice, back in the day.
Would the Claudian Scoundrel who fielded that army have had the figures available to play with, had Ancients rules been confined to historical matchups? NO.

I will even go so far s to say that those who natter on about their Late Hellenistic Bosporan City State "army" would have nothing to play with, had some manufcturer decided to make the Bosporan Farriers Militia, knowing they could play … Burmese.

IN FACT, I will further assert that you would not have nearly the nummber of Imperial Roman or Norman figures on the market if they could only play historical opponents.

I already know what the purists will howl as they try to shout me down. I have heard it before, and they are wrong. As usual. "*I* ONLY play historical campaigns, and I had no problem buying Wu-Fat-su and Xian figures!" Which misses the point entirely. They are available ONLY because some manufacturer took a chance. And that chance was aalleviated by the fact that they could play against … Carthaginians.
Don't bother to refute me. I am right and you are wrong.

There is a logical fallacy inherent in "A frequent gripe of Ancients players" (which I can't be bothered to look up), and that is assuming that the views of you and your tight group is universal.
I call it the Pauline Kael Syndrome.
Now, if you want to rephrase that to "A frequent gripe directed at Ancients players", then you might have a point.

I remember having to restrain my giggles at a DBA Tourney …

I am so glad you showed such restraint. It shows you are not immune to good manners.

There is a logical fallacy inherent in "A frequent gripe of Ancients players" (which I can't be bothered to look up), and that is assuming that the views of you and your tight group is universal.

'Anecdotal' is the name of the Logical Fallacy you seek. But I am not referring to me and my mates, but to TMP, which I think it is fair to say gives a good cross-section, and on which this is not an uncommon kvetch.

And my manners are impeccable.

Padraig

To define the boundary between what did happen and what possibly could have happened, please read Kon Tiki and The Ra Expeditions by Thor Herhydral.

:)

The major hurdle in many of these "implausible" match-ups is likely nobody felt like it.

I've played (although not for years) the distinct game that starts with the rules, the army lists, and a miniatures budget and asks "can I build an army and beat my friends with it"?

It's a perfectly fine game, I remember enjoying it, and I am in no way opposed to it. So put me down for "no geographic boundaries at all" please.

If I build armies for both sides (which seems what I usually do these days) I pick wars, periods and themes I am interested in and those are historical matches, but that is a different game.

To me 'period matchup' also includes geographical proximity.

I generally prefer historical battles, subject to the limitations of the source material.

Howl Rant grumble!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The OFM preaches heresy and we must out shout him!!!!!!!!!!!
‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌

Actually I'm tired of historical/geographic match ups! I'm really tired of playing the same three or four players when my Low Countries or Seleucids come out!

"Now, if you want to rephrase that to "A frequent gripe directed at Ancients players", then you might have a point."

----> Nobody has ever forced me at gunpoint to play an ahistorical matchup with my ancients. OTOH it is more fulfilling to play in period with balanced armies-- that "could" have fought one another. The other extreme is nobody ever forced me to play a boring snootily reconstructed battle scenario at gunpoint either. Nobody has forced me to dress up as a Zulu king… etc…

OFM makes a good point- it is the other period gamers who get all itchy about cross period matches in ancients. I think it is silly to have such things--- but I partake because it is fun… but I know it isn't as serious simulation as Early late middle Panzergrenadiers vs. Middle early later Italian tank division-- now that's simulation!

LOL….

Still my favorite tournaments are in period ones- where there is a line where the highest percentage of games is in your weight class. Macedonians/Epirotes did fight Carthage-- just not in any documented battle-- more skirmishes and sieges.

JJonas

How about Vikings or Welsh vs native Americans? Chinese vs Aztec (or a Pacific coast neighbour)? Do I have to prove it did happen or do you have to (somehow) prove it didn't?

Snort.

For those struggling with unhistorical matches I'd thoroughly recommend Philip Jose Farmer's Riverworld series.

Back in the heyday of pulp fiction, R. E. Howard introduced the matchups of the world's most famous tactical systems and cultures: his Hyborian Age world had essentially ancient Greeks, Steppes Turks, Sassanid Persians, ancient Egyptians, Arabian "nights", medieval Spain, England, France and Germany, et al. cohabiting and in perpetual conflict. It was and remains great fun especially as a full-blown campaign. ("Hail to thee, the late, great Rocky Russo; it was fun, while it lasted"….)

For those struggling with unhistorical matches I'd thoroughly recommend Philip Jose Farmer's Riverworld series.

I recommend the series no matter where you land in this argument.

Let's see here… closest approach between any Chinese Empire and any Roman Empire is Tang China and the Byzantine Empire ~650AD. IIRC, they were ~3-4 weeks march apart.

As the French say " Chacun a son gout". Personally I will fight anyone, anywhere. It's a game and it's fun.Let's face it, wargaming bears as much reality to real war as the game of "Life" bears to ,well, real life.
I enjoy both the so called historical format and the ahistorical one. If it turns your crank, enjoy. If it doesn't, no hard feelings.

This is a hobby. If you want to see how a WW2 Panzergrenadier does in a D&D game that's your buisness. Really, I was once curious about that. About 30 years ago.
I've been curious about what would be the outcome of a fight between a pike army and an English longbow army. Just not enough to spend money about it.

Lion-
During Trajan's reign the Han empire had an outpost one days march from the borders of the Roman empire I believe.

But back to the actual question, I'm happy to fight battles between armies that had a mutual enemy/ally, or perhaps even one more removed than that eg the Han fought the Xiong-nu, who had chased westward the Yeu-chi, who inturn with the Saca invaded Bactria, so Han Chinese vs Bactrian Greeks seems ok. So basically any two armies that could have met by long but not impossible route marches.
But wouldn't be happy with battles between armies separated by oceans

Do I have to prove it did happen or do you have to (somehow) prove it didn't?

Well played, sir! Absence of proof is not proof of absence!

Chazzmak and
Rrobbyrobot have the proper answer for me
(and most of my *gaming* friends)
just play and have fun! :)

I'm with the OFM on this one. The fact that you can easily (well more or less) do what if matchups to see who would come out on tops is one of the things that really attracted me to ancients in the first place.

JJ I have a gun and a loin cloth! You will dress as Shaka Zulu!

+1 for the lands of the Hyborian Age as the ultimate excuse to paint up lots of "ahistorical" opponents in an awesome setting.

TMP, which I think it is fair to say gives a good cross-section

…of people who visit TMP. Never use this small subset of a subset of a niche and generalize to the greater subset of the niche. That way lies misrepresentation and madness. :)

Lion-
During Trajan's reign the Han empire had an outpost one days march from the borders of the Roman empire I believe.

Cool! Now I can 'abuse' some people with Han Chinese versus Romans…

If you stick to only playing historical matchups, for several armies you're restricting yourself to only playing 1 or 2 enemies, because that's all they ever fought. There are probably even some armies that only fought civil wars. That would get pretty boring pretty quickly wouldn't it?

I'd get a kick out of playing any non-firearm carrying army against any other, doesn't matter what period. An example: Plains Native Americans vs Alans would interest me.

Well, if you have'Space:89AD', TogaPunk, PikePunk, 'Outre Outremer', 100plus Years Warpunk, etc. with Airships and funky flora+fauna, I have no problem with it. That's what Imagi-Continents are for(remember Mafrica?).

I have never played a pseudo history match up & never will. Life is too short!

I prefer historical match-ups, or at least armies from the same region from the same time. I have done georgian vs crusader although I have no idea if they have actually fought, but it was possible. I would do carthage vs Macedonia because it might have happened. I love the history behind a game, but am happy to have a game as long as the forces on the table are a plausible match-up. I dont play in comps any more, but was in one where about a quarter of the armies were from an empire I had never heard of which all the troops were chosen from a very narrow time window. Chola empire anyone ?

Historical, non-historical, what does is matter? It's all fantasy anyway.

Tim

Chola empire anyone ?

The Chola Dynasty was actually the major power on the subcontinent to have a significant offensive maritime policy (i.e., not just sponsor or fight piracy). Probably one of the better candidates from the region to have reached further than it did.

Aslong as its fun.
And everything is painted.
And that no one actually takes it seriously as a representation of what would have happened.

This is one of those places where the definition of "fantasy" varies from one person to the next. Yes, ahistorical matchups happen quite a lot in Ancients tournaments and every now and again in one-off games. Are they fantasy? I would say so, but others might not.

By the same token, what about Fulda Gap games based on the late 1970's? How about Hollywood-style Old West games or ditto gladiator or pirate games? G.A.S.L.I.G.H.T. or pulp?

Most of the games that I do use forces from the time, but the scenario is my own. Fantasy?

I'm glad I'm not the guy who has to make the decision of what constitutes a fantasy or scifi game for a convention's "no more than 10%" rule, for example.

Aslong as its fun.
And everything is painted.
And that no one actually takes it seriously as a representation of what would have happened.

Waitaminute. Are you saying that these games are NOT accurate down to the last detail? The guy at Games Workshop assured me that 40K was an accurate representation of the grimdark future. That

They lied to you mate.

I think the zeitgheist of ancients, especially during the 70s was less to focus on the question of "Could these two armies have actually met?" and more to focus on "ignoring the possibility of HOW it happened, what would have resulted if these two armies actually met?"

To define the boundary between what did happen and what possibly could have happened, please read Kon Tiki and The Ra Expeditions by Thor Herhydral.

Those *are* some fun stories.

Assuming I survive long enough to retire, my 'second career' is going to be as an experimental archaeologist.

I'm with ya LitS! As a kid, I planned out tons of "expeditions".

The cool thing is how what Herhydral did runs the border between what "happened" and what "could have happened". No one believes in Ploynesian migration to the Americas, but it could have happened. It was my first introduction to the Fundamental Principle of Science – "If it happens, it must be possible."

Hey, I ama in a long-running camapaign pitting my Late Momoyama Perio Feudal Japanese army against my buddy's Wood Elves, so I'm not throwing any stones. :-D