"Should there be a Dark Ages board?" Topic

I was slightly surprised that there wasn't one. It seems to me to be radically different than late Medieval.

I share your surprise – I think there should be one as well.

Why not? Saxons, Vikings and Normans, oh my! I know there were others as well, but those are my favorites.

yes we need one

Well, before the naysayers begin let help them along.

OH no! Not another Board!

8)

Sure, why not?
You may need to establish a timeline, though, or let another Poll define it.

Defining it is the problem. Though I agree that there probably should be one.

Yes there should be.

no – because its hard to define the Dark ages (its a real western concept)

I am playing greek dark ages (so that's 1100 – 790 BCE)
or English dark ages ( 500 – 800 ish AD)
or dark ages as the western fall of rome to start of the crusades (so 450 – 1100 ish AD)

I wouldn't mind if someone wanted to add the usual early medieval period as a period or if we needed to have four or five different periods for combat pre 1500 AD in the west.

I would say

Biblical – from 4000 BCE to 800 BCE
Classical from 800 BCE to 50 BCE
Roman Empire from 50 BCE to 450 AD
Early Medieval from 450 to (?) (I would say 1100 AD)
Medieval from 1100 – 1450 (or so… but no later than 1520)

but any splitting is purely arbitrary … and other people can come up with schemes that make as much (or more) sense.

No. The Dark Ages (in Europe) fall into the Medieval period.

I guess Medieval could be divided into Early Middle, High Middle and Late Middle Ages. But then everyone would have to know what those definitions are lol.

Given that I occasionally see Saxons and Vikings placed in the Ancient boards it might prove to be a bit of a problem.

Perhaps we could have a Dark Ages board but no-one could post to it? They were the Dark Ages for a reason.

Maddaz suggestion for early medieval seems sensible if people really want to have such a thing.

This has been voted down before, but once again, I will vote yes. If at first you don't succeed…

As a term, isn't "dark ages" not really used anymore by historians?

+1 for Maddaz's idea.

Nah.

Yes I would like a dark ages board.

martin

Please yes. I support anything that adds to the general confusion. Which probably sounds like a sarcastic way of saying, no more boards it is confusing enough already, but I really do support more boards and confusion. I am a firm disciple of the Principia Discordia. Creative disorder and all that.

Yes to a Dark Ages board … in the West, warfare in the era which links the fall of Rome to the expansion of the Normans is neither Ancient or Medieval in its characteristics.

It is also a very popular period – when wasn't there stuff on Vikings and Saxons around our wargame tables?

As to time spans, there will always be overlaps (that is what crossposting is for) – there is nothing more quintessentially Dark Age than 'Arthurian' Britain but really, date-wise, that is ancient and fall of Rome (so that I'd crosspost to Ancients and Dark Age)

Similarly … the 1066 campaign with its mix of Anglo-Saxons, 'Vikings' and Normans I'd crossppost as Dark Age and Medieval …

Phil

I would like to have a a Dark Ages board – maybe Fall of the Western Empire to rise of the Normans?

I will raise a stone on yon hillside and carve runes expressing my opinion on this matter.

Although I'm the one who originally suggested it, on reflection NO.

I don't think it's more than a sub period & the argument over what to call it won't help.

A lot of gamers play "dark ages" , so a board would be nice. Wargaming tends to be euro-centric . This means a few hundred years of European warfare will attract more gaming than a thousand years of warfare in China.

The gaming world is one of the few places that still uses the term "Dark Ages". Historians generally prefer the term "Late Medieval." But it is not as cool sounding as "Dark Ages" which is more of a marketing term than an actual period in history. If I played "Dark Ages" I would have naturally looked for the Medieval board first. Makes perfect sense.

The current medieval board is an appropriate place for discussions of all things "Dark Ages." Don't see any need to add to the general confusion that are the discussion boards on TMP.

It maybe that some people did not realize that the so called "Dark Ages" are part of the medieval period. Now they do. Be sure not to suggest something like this on TMP as a lark or joke as it will probably become reality. I vote no.

The gaming world is one of the few places that still uses the term "Dark Ages". Historians generally prefer the term "Late Medieval."

I'm sure you meant 'Early Medieval' …

The statement may be true according to your experience but it is generally not true in mine. Yes, there have been plenty of people who have tried to Politically Correct our terminology as historians (imagining, somehow, that if we use the traditional term 'Dark Age' we will think that they were dark in some sense) – but thankfully most people don't jump to silly conclusions and most people know full well what the terminology means.

It maybe that some people did not realize that the so called "Dark Ages" are part of the medieval period.

Well, as I pointed out before, militarily the Dark Age, or Early Medieval period if you prefer, is quite distinct from the later period (terms of service, armour, weapons, fighting style, organisation etc.) … so, generally, no, I don't really agree ..

Be sure not to suggest something like this on TMP as a lark or joke as it will probably become reality.

I support and would contribute to the Board … I'm not really that bothered what you call it … I prefer the traditional term Dark Ages (which is intelligent enough as it matches what most wargamers and historians call the period) or the more politically correct 'Early Medieval' (which is a bit misleading as it implies that the period is by-and-large Medieval) or something else – say, Viking Age (cue next debate … but Viking is a complete misnomer … etc. etc.) …

Phil

I agree with Phil. Thank you Phil for a good summary.

martin

I completely agree with you there Phil, however, were you to put a post up that relates to the Arab Conquest and thus the Islamic Golden Age, where would you place it?

Exactly, where do you post?

Where do you post it now?

I opened my contribution on this topic by saying …

Yes to a Dark Ages board … in the West, warfare in the era which links the fall of Rome to the expansion of the Normans is neither Ancient or Medieval in its characteristics.

… and closed it with

I'm not really that bothered what you call it …

So I would put Arab Conquest squarely in the Dark Age period (because it is) and so on the Dark Age Board (because that is where it belongs) … the fact that it you may feel it is an Islamic Golden Age (FWIW I'd put that a little later … ) doesn't matter because 'Dark Age' doesn't mean it was dark and is a Western definition (as is classical, Medieval, Renaissance and all the other broad definitions which we use – all of which are pretty meaningless and inappropriate other than in defining a broad period because we all know what they mean)

Nothing special about Dark Age in any of these respects.

FWIW I would have no problem with a different board entirely for this sort of topic but don't forget the Arabs got to Tours/Poitiers and the Varangians to Anatolia (hence my tongue in cheek suggestion 'Age of the Vikings')

Phil
Ancients on the Move

'Dark Age' doesn't mean it was dark

Lol…it's called the Dark Ages because after the break up of the Roman Empire, ideas, art and culture were no longer readily communicated across the lands that the Roman Empire had previously controlled and thus people were less illuminated by ideas from afar. In that sense it does indeed mean 'Dark'.

the fact that it you may feel it is an Islamic Golden Age

It isn't that I 'feel' it is anything. Historically IT IS part of the Islamic Golden Age. Personal feelings do not enter into it.

Lol indeed … Me too …

I think if you take these terms and meanings so literally and precisely (first – actually, no, second – time I've come across such vehement rigidity over the years), then yes, they all become problematic – that is my point about Middle Ages, Renaissance etc.

The sense in which the Dark Ages were once thought to be dark is in the (once so deemed) paucity of historical sources – though doubtless some may have imagined the phrase to have your more poetic connotations …

All of it inappropriate as you know I acknowledge.

I'll certainly not fight you on your last point: history is all about interpretation so if you think the Conquest is (no need for capitalisation) part of the Islamic Golden Age then I'm sure that's fine.

However, using these arguments we certainly couldn't support any use of terms like 'Middle Ages' or 'Medieval' either …

Phil

I vote 'yes' … it's time to shed some light on the Dark Ages!

The sense in which the Dark Ages were once thought to be dark is in the (once so deemed) paucity of historical sources – though doubtless some may have imagined the phrase to have your more poetic connotations …

The 'paucity of information' is connected to and as a result of the very explanation I gave. Poetic as my wording maybe, it is no connotation, it is an explanation and one not given to quite such pompous terminology lol.
It is not so much the regression of anything in Western Europe but the lack of methodology so accustomed during Roman rule that gives rise to the term Dark Age.

I think if you take these terms and meanings so literally and precisely (first – actually, no, second – time I've come across such vehement rigidity over the years), then yes, they all become problematic

I think you may have missed my point. Some people do take them literally and some do not, hence the predictable confusion.

I'll certainly not fight you on your last point:

Why would you choose to fight me on any point?

(no need for capitalisation)

I'm fairly certain I'll best be the judge of that

It's always peculiar yet entertaining when someone you agree with tries to 'fight' you.

Well, I'm certainly glad you agree with me, Fizzypickles …

Phil

So we both say 'Yes'

Unlike 55% of Scotland who said 'No'

Remember this title, Armies of the Dark Ages, 600-1066 A.D.
by Ian Heath. Did anyone not know what was being referred to? Would it have been so much better with the title Armies of the Early Medieval Period?

And how were the other medieval volumes by Ian Heath named? In retrospect, I think it would have been more sensible to name them consistently as:

- Armies of the Early Middle Ages 600-1066 AD
- Armies of the High Middle Ages 1066-1300 AD
- Armies of the Late Middle Ages 1300-1487 AD (Vol I & II)

Well, having hung from the world tree gazing into Ymir's pool for three nights and three days, pierced through my side with a spear and had one of my eyes plucked out to gain wisdom on this matter, I believe that I have a solution which won't be too painful.*

Given that people have been posting Dark Ages stuff in both the Ancients and Medievals boards up to now, perhaps the best solution would be a sub-board for Dark Ages which appears in both boards.

*OK, that is a complete fabrication. I just read this thread, looked at the boards, had a ciggy and slurped my tea while pondering possible solutions.

*OK, that is a complete fabrication. I just read this thread, looked at the boards, had a ciggy and slurped my tea while pondering possible solutions.

First version was better, TamsinP …

Yes – spot on … something like DBx or Field of Glory shows up on both _ancient and _medieval if you post to it – so you do indeed have the solution (nobody need ever feel obliged to agree which period it belongs to as long as Bill creates it …)…

So we just need a name which we can all agree on …

Phil

An acceptable name…..
how about the "Sutton Who?" board?

who?