"Where do Ancients stop & Fantasy begin?" Topic

Seeing threads on the Ancients boards concerning the Game of Thrones & This is Sparta & Ancient Imaginations….& yes even on the Trojans, I was wondering if there was a cut off between Ancients & Fantasy or is a certain blurring acceptable?

Please note: this is not a criticism of either period.

I always thought that 'regular' Ancients and Fantasy were much the same apart from the use of 'magic' and/or armies based upon fiction writing.

Ancient Imaginations are probably OK as they tend to be based upon historic sources.

As long as players are happy does it matter much?

Ancients as generally used by fellow enthusiasts is about wargaming with armies based on historical ones.

Honestly I don't see that many threads on Game of Thrones & This is Sparta & Ancient Imaginations although Troy, yes, is an example of of an episode which is complicated (the ancients themselves generally thought it historical but today we recognise the depiction as mythical and anachronistic).

Of course, posting and cross-posting on TMP does blur the edges (but that is true on any period/genre on this forum).

The archetypal Ancients Imagination would probably be Tony Bath's Hyboria campaign – real (but not necessarily contemporary) historical armies set in an imaginary world based on the Conan novels.

Today, I think many would see Hyboria as how ancients used to be, not how it is today.

I'm sure JimDuncanUK is right that what the players are happy with is more important than the fine print, but it is worth remembering that historical wargaming is all about coming together as enthusiasts on common ground.

Phil

Some people want to play a historically plausible version of the conflicts that involved Ilium and the Acheans and lead to the stories of Trojan War. Others want to see Diomedes square off with the likes of Ares and Aphrodite, while some prefer an SF game where posthumans pretend to be Greek Gods …

In most cases, artificial distinctions created by us. Unless you are using well-defined and researched specific armies they are all really fantasy.

I agree – Ancients includes things that were historically plausible while Fantasy includes things like magic, Orks, Zeus striding onto the battlefield, etc.

Even, dare I say it, Napoleonic armies are part fantasy as the troops are depicted in their dress uniforms; rather than the dirt and grime of the march to the battlefield.

"As long as players are happy does it matter much?"

Clearly, not at all. I am just curious to see if a divide does exist & where it might be.

anytime someone pits one army against another in a matchup that never happened… thats fantasy.
ymmv,
RC

I don't think the Ancients regarded their gods as 'fantasy'.

I'm with Phil on this one, the minute we get into dragons, magic, chain mail bikinis and Zeus riding Cerberus into battle, it is fantasy.

Just because we can't be exactly sure what colour the Romans painted the insides of their shields, not how light chariots actually worked in battle doesn't make it fantasy.

Also remember, EVERY gaming period, from the point of view of the people who lived at the time, is "modern."

Which is not to say that Ancients discussions should be crossposted to the Modern boards. But that *would* be funny.

Is not a DBA game featuring Normans vs Chin Dynasty a "fantasy game." I've seen plenty of those type of encouters at conventions.

The reason there is so much cross-posting is simply because virtually all fantasy that descends from 'actual' Myths/Conan/LOTR/etc is actually firmly rooted in elements of real history. Fantasy cultures that are clear analogs for real cultures, elements of the setting lifted from actual events, military systems 'borrowed' from real life, and so forth and so on. So history might be very distinct from fantasy, but fantasy often isn't all that distinct from history.

So when someone asks a question about Westeros, for example, and cross-posts it to the Medieval Board, this makes a certain level of sense as most of what folks know about the real middle ages would probably *also* be useful in answering this question.

-Will

I'm with Phil on this one, the minute we get into dragons, magic, chain mail bikinis and Zeus riding Cerberus into battle, it is fantasy.

Agreed – once you include effective magic and mythical creatures in a game, you cross the border into fantasy.

Doug

Is not a DBA game featuring Normans vs Chin Dynasty a "fantasy game." I've seen plenty of those type of encouters at conventions.

Because there were so few of them and the period of their interests was so broad, the founding fathers of ancients agreed a perfectly viable definition of historical that did not cross the middle of the wargame table i.e. each player's debt to authenticity extends only to his own army (and the standards of authenticity for many enthusiasts over the years has been exacting indeed, as we know) …

Players then accepted that pitting two such historical armies against each other using a generic battle system was a viable and appropriate thing to do although it is clear from the very beginning that recreating an actual battle with authentic armies was a purer sort of historical wargaming (even if it allowed the players less scope as miniature generals).

In today's wargaming, where period specific rules are available and most wargamers have dozens of armies rather than just one or two, I think generic wargaming with historical armies looks odder than it once did.

Then again I find it odd that players in more modern periods play generic battles (say 1942 Germans vs 1944 Russians) without batting an eyelid yet look askance at say Greeks vs Assyrians … In the end it is either a historical battle or it isn't.

I'd add that normal (in the UK at least) is to theme events within period bands (say WRG's four 'book' periods) and, e.g. at Usk, the first round of a themed event will be matched off by date (so there is an attempt these days to skew against the extremes of implausibility) …

Phil

'I'm talking of OUR view looking back, and their folklore.'

Now go forward 3-4,000 years when our view of looking back is their folklore.

Is not a DBA game featuring Normans vs Chin Dynasty a "fantasy game." I've seen plenty of those type of encouters at conventions.

I'd say that wasn't fantasy. I'd say that was a war GAME. I'd say that fantasy would feature an army based on one that never actually existed historically, magic or fantastic creatures.

It's a fine line, but it is there never the less.

Does it matter? Not unless you are playing the Spartans Vs the army of Gondor and Gandalf turns up.

Then again, if we get an ahistorical result after a game is it fantasy? And I, for one, refuse to relegate chainmail bikinis to the realm of fantasy. The historical evidence just hasn't turned up, yet…

Chainmail bikinis, I once met someone who thinks he has seen one, long time ago…

No serious. Many of the so-called historical games could also be called fantasy, if everything is considered.
For example, many rules state that a unit is X number of figures, while in reality, not a lot of units were of identical size.

Most important thing is, we all play GAMES!
And sometimes try to recreate what has happened in history.

orks :)

Come now I can't be the only one to have seen a chainmail bikini.

That was cosplay, not a wargame, but still… actually that was long before costuming was called cosplay…

Lets not get fantasy mixed up with historical hypothetical games or call a game fantasy because there is a difference of opinion as to the number of figures to use on a base. That's a rules/scenario issue.

Playing a "what if" Gettysburg scenario or a hypothetical meeting engagement over a crossroads using historically based rules and ACW figures, is still a historical game. Now throw in a wizard or a Dragon, that is a fantasy game.

To paraphrase the Supreme Court. I can't always explain if the game is fantasy, but I know it when I see it.

Most important thing is, we all play GAMES!

Well maybe, but I have always argued that they are two different hobbies. Somewhat related yes, but different. I use to have trouble even putting the two under the "wargame" umbrella. But I have come around to doing so. But still if you start talking to me about "wargames", I am thinking historical first.

Orcs and dragons be fantasy.

I'm not so sure about orcs being fantasy. I think I went to school with a few of them.

Went to school with some? You were lucky. I dated one or two.

I worked for one.

If your referent (the source material from which you derive your unit stats, rules, environment, etc.) are historical it is a historical game. If not, not.

@ Etotheipi

A fair enough rule for ordinary usage but what about the grey areas: which is what this question is all about?

eg Homer's Catalogue of Ships

link

Is this historical or is it poetic fancy?
Does it match a specific real settlement pattern or is it tweaked for reasons of rhyme & metre, a payback for hospitality received or later political realities?

So much of ancient history can be ancient fantasy.

@ochoin

I agree that we can have inaccurate historical sources. And some of them are wildly inaccurate enough to call them fiction. And we have things that are genuinely historical fiction … people with historical intent "filling in the gaps" between the facts with reasonable extrapolations. And, of course there is politically motivated (a priori or a posteriori) redaction and revision.

I would still call those things history, though I would likely put a modifier before historical depending on what I considered the important facts for implementing the game in question were and how much variation from strict records.

I would say there is historical merit gaming from the records of the Hungarian Uprising or Prague Spring, though records from both sides come heavily biased.

From your example, if the range and span of different city states that contributed ships were important and the actual names of the captains weren't, I would use that as my litmus test for the need of a modifier.

Most army strengths we have from ancient battles are round numbers and approximations. That doesn't necessarily make them less historical than the Paraguayan army a friend of mine does where he paints the name of an actual combatant from the muster rolls on the base of each miniature.

After all, our word history comes from the Greek historía, which means knowledge acquired through detailed study, which is not the same thing as simple lists of facts. The truth must be consistent with facts, but facts are not sufficient to constitute the truth.

Anything non-historical is non-historcal. If you want to call the latter 'fantasy', that's fine by me.

So…

William versus Harold, 1066 = Historical easypeasy

William versus Harold, 1068: the return grudge match after Harold survives the first one… = Non-Historical… just

Oh, and William versus Trajenic Roman: 1066 = Non-Historical easypeasy

William versus Mordor Orc army: Any Third Age date you like = Really really Non-Historical

Just my two pennorth…

John T

Playing a "what if" Gettysburg scenario or a hypothetical meeting engagement over a crossroads using historically based rules and ACW figures, is still a historical game. Now throw in a wizard or a Dragon, that is a fantasy game

Damm man! Why are you giving me ideas? What would you do of Robert E. Lee? A Level 4 wizard, perhaps?

I'd say the moment any form of Divine Intervention or Spiritual Manifestation or overtly non-human element modifies a die roll or any unit's ability, you have fantasy.

And yes, that includes a flaming banner appearing over the battlefield reading "In hoc signo vinces", if such apparition results in a measurable effectiveness advantage represented by changing the game mechanics in any way.

No offense.

In other words:

Fielding Amazons? Sure, okay, arguably plausible from an historical standpoint.

Fielding Valkyries? Now you've got fantasy.