"Renaming battles / wars" Topic

Not sure if this is big deal anywhere else in the world, but in Sub-Saharan Africa, towns change name with alarming regularity, and the use of words and phrases comes under great scrutiny. This is not the time nor place to discuss the politics behind these changes, but I'd be interested to see where people feel this leaves the wargamer / historian.

Do we re-fight, for example, the Siege of Mafeking? Or the Siege of Mafikeng? Or, as the name of the town has now been officially renamed (again) to, the Siege of Mahikeng? Many British / Imperial regiments were awarded a Battle Honour for the defence of / relief of Mafeking – should these be re-written with the modern name?

Similarly, do we re-fight the Kaffir Wars (as they were known for well over a century, though the word is now accepted by most to be deeply offensive these days), or the 'Cape Frontier Wars' (as they have recently been rebranded due to the modern connotations over the previous name)?

My fear is that renaming historical events is a rather dangerous precedent – seeking to sanitise the past is almost as bad as deliberately re-writing history for political reasons. It's never easy to strike the right balance, but I believe we should look to study and re-create history 'warts-and-all'. Where will it end? Will the Indian Mutiny be renamed? The Boxer Rebellion? There is even a move by some nutcases hereabouts to have the Boer War renamed as they consider it 'offensive'.

Can any good come out of these changes?

Use the name of the location as it was at the time of the battle. This is what is done with most ancient battles.

If your goal is to create a study of history that is universal, yes it is good. So if i want to pick up a book "Military History of the Human Race" I expect the wars to either be multiply named (the name used for the war by each participant) or a name accepted by the majority of historians.

If your goal is to preserve a certain historical interpretation, then no. Thus if I want to pick up "An English view of the Military History of the Human Race" obviously a more anglo-centric naming convention is required.

But make no mistake. The names you mention are themselves subjective. They are how the wars were called by one side.

It really is simple. Do you want your wargames to just represent your prejudices, or do you want to be open to people from other cultures?

This was a major issue I had with Black Powder. Great rules, great book but I detested the flippant manner it had towards non-Anglo Wars (that little insert on the Wars of German Unification was the most childish thing I have ever read.) I also thought that many of the captions of the pictures were blatantly anglo-centric. But since it is a tongue in cheek publication and so good on many fronts, I swallowed my bile and enjoyed the rest.

But let us say if i had written it, my attitude would had been very different. And I would never use it to get a person outside the anglo-centric world introduced to war-gaming. I would use the rules, but do my own introduction.

Also the past is always sanitized. The War of the Cousins became the War of the Roses.

The safest and most correct is to call wars by their participants imho

Thus Kaffir Wars or Cape Wars would become British-Xhosa Wars

The Boxer Rebellion => The China-Great Powers War

We continue to refight Stalingrad, even though it has also been Tsaritsyn and Volgograd. Don't get me started on Byzantium…

As MajorB says, just call it what it was called at the time.

Also the past is always sanitized. The War of the Cousins became the War of the Roses.

That was an accident of history. Nothing at all to do with "sanitisation". Shakespeare romanticised the dispute between the houses of York and Lancaster with the scene in the garden in Henry VI, Part 1. This was then picked up on by Victorian historians who thought the wars were known as the Wars of the Roses – in fact a complete misunderstanding. At the time of the conflict it was usually known as the Cousins Wars.

MajorB, accident or not, it changed the name of the war. And it was sanitisation mate. Made it more romantic supposedly :p . If we define sanitisation as changing a wars name in order to amke it more popular or interesting it counts I dare say. Though we can agree to disagree.

And it was sanitisation mate. Made it more romantic supposedly :p

It was hardly "sanitisation" if the Victorians in question did not realise that it had previously had a different name!

BTW, how is "The Wars of the Roses " more "romantic" than "The Cousins' Wars"?

MajorB wrote

At the time of the conflict it was usually known as the Cousins Wars.

Or not. I haven't seen any contempoprary evidence for that term – see for example link

Roses major B. Cousins can be problematic. :) You seem a bit hot on this, so I will withdraw from the field.

At the time of the conflict it was usually known as the Cousins Wars.

Or not. I haven't seen any contemporary evidence for that term – see for example link

Interesting. I have never heard of Leanda de Lisle until now. I see that she is a journalist and novelist.
leandadelisle.com/about

OTOH, Alison Weir is a well known historian with a special interest in the 15th century.
link

Alison Weir has stated:"In fact, the battles were collectively known as ‘the Cousins' wars', because they affected primarily the rival claimants. "
link

I am more inclined to accept the view of a historian than a journalist any day.

Cousins can be problematic

How so?

Must we derail the topic like this! You are right sir, I am wrong. Can we continue on the OP question?

Trying to re-write history is always problematic.

Interesting, MajorB, because Alison Weir also says, in a comment on the link I cited earlier:

"In the latter decades of the 20th century several academic historians followed S.B. Chrimes in asserting that the name ‘the Wars of the Roses' was anachronistic, and some asserted that ‘Cousins' Wars' was the correct contemporary term, but I too can find no source cited, although I don't have the full range of works to hand. But I would agree that the more appropriate term is ‘Wars of the Roses'."

Oh, incidentally, MajorB, de Lisle seems not to be a "journalist and novelist" as you suggest: the site you linked to mentions several historical works of non-fiction she has written, but no novels.

"In the latter decades of the 20th century several academic historians followed S.B. Chrimes in asserting that the name ‘the Wars of the Roses' was anachronistic, and some asserted that ‘Cousins' Wars' was the correct contemporary term, but I too can find no source cited, although I don't have the full range of works to hand. But I would agree that the more appropriate term is ‘Wars of the Roses'."

Seems to be some confusion here! Of course, just because someone claiming to be "Alison Weir" appears on a blog effectively disagreeing with herself does not prove that it really was a comment by Alison Weir. Now if Alison had said as much somewhere on her own web site or blog, I might believe you. As it is …

"de Lisle seems not to be a "journalist and novelist" as you suggest: the site you linked to mentions several historical works of non-fiction she has written, but no novels."

OK, fair enough on that one. She is definitely a journalist. It does seem though that her historical area of expertise is the Tudor period and later. Unlike Alison Weir who has written several books on the WOTR.

At any time while it was being fought, was that war called the Seven Years War? "We only have to hold out 3 more years and it will be over!"
Ditto 30 Years War, 100 Years War…
Was the Great War ever called the First World War before 1939?

As for battles…
When did Bull Run become "First Bull Run"?

Seems to be some confusion here!

People do change their minds, or indeed discover that there was no evidence for something they once thought to be true.

just because someone claiming to be "Alison Weir"

In a comment that links back directly to Alison Weir's own website. I see no reason to doubt it.

Or do you actually have a source for this "Cousins' War" phrase? Weir seems unable to provide one.

(Incidentally, the discussion of "Cousins War" on the wikipedia Talk page for "Wars of the Roses" is interesting, if inconclusive – link )

People do change their minds, or indeed discover that there was no evidence for something they once thought to be true.

Indeed they do. But you'd expect there to be some place where they make that statement of revised opinion rather than just a comment on a blog!

In a comment that links back directly to Alison Weir's own website. I see no reason to doubt it.

That's just a link. Easily fudged by anyone who wanted to convey the impression that they were actually Alison Weir. It's just too convenient that the ONLY place she appears to contradict herself on this topic is on a blog where a "rival" author is publishing a guest post …

From the Wikipedia article you cite:
"Wars of the Roses came into common use in the nineteenth century, after the publication of Anne of Geierstein by Sir Walter Scott."
link

If it only came into common use in the 19th century how were they referred to before?

Another interesting note is in the references on that WP article:
" During Shakespeare's time people used the term Civil Wars: cf. e.g., the title of Samuel Daniel's work, the First Four Books of the Civil Wars" (which appeared in 1595, a matter of only just over 100 years after the end of the wars).
So by the 16th century there is documentary evidence that the wars were known as the Civil Wars. Of course, that would have to change after the English Civil Wars of the 17th century to avoid confusion …

"At any time while it was being fought, was that war called the Seven Years War? "We only have to hold out 3 more years and it will be over!""

War was pretty civilized back then. I bet they had come to some sort of time limit. Ditto with the Nine Years War.

Will the Indian Mutiny be renamed?

I believe you mean India's First War of Independence.

The Boxer Rebellion?

The Yihetuan Movement? Right.

Alright, I'm being a little cheeky, but these are both good examples of how the traditional names may be problematic while the "revisions" are too often just a different kind of wrong.

1857. Certainly there was mutiny, but the conflict went well beyond that. Civil populations can't mutiny, nor can native troops not in service of the HEIC or the Crown. Rebellion is a far more accurate term, as is Uprising.

On the other hand, deeming the events of 1857 to be "India's First War of Independence" is a bit of fatuous nationalistic myth-making. Besides the fact that the War involved only a minority of the territory and population of modern day India, it dissembles by implying that all of the subcontinent was under British rule. In my experience, the existence and nature of Indian "Native States" during the 19th and 20th Centuries is either ignored or manipulated to suit the modern Indian nationalist narrative.

The Boxer Rebellion is interesting, in that the "Rebellion" part was a post-conflict PR move agreed upon by the the Qing and the Western Powers. The Boxers didn't rebel against the Dynasty, and their war against foreigners also does not merit the term "rebellion". The Qing, having thrown in their lot with the Boxers and lost, needed to save face and the Western Powers needed the Qing to remain in power. Hence, the fiction that the Boxers rebelled against the Dynasty.

My gripe with "The Yihetuan Movement" is that it omits any term denoting conflict. While it's true that the Movement had interesting spiritual and philosophical aspects, it was martial in nature and intent, and it's moment on the stage was in the context of a war. I also tire of pedantics who won't term a historical conflict a "War" if war was not officially declared.

1857. Certainly there was mutiny, but the conflict went well beyond that. Civil populations can't mutiny, nor can native troops not in service of the HEIC or the Crown. Rebellion is a far more accurate term, as is Uprising.

On the other hand, deeming the events of 1857 to be "India's First War of Independence" is a bit of fatuous nationalistic myth-making. Besides the fact that the War involved only a minority of the territory and population of modern day India, it dissembles by implying that all of the subcontinent was under British rule. In my experience, the existence and nature of Indian "Native States" during the 19th and 20th Centuries is either ignored or manipulated to suit the modern Indian nationalist narrative.

I was under the impression that most of the uprising (whatever you want to name it) was about the monumentally-stupid decisions made by the HEIC, though the British government was not exactly free of such ("martial" versus "non-martial races" for example)…

Well I know historians of the PCMyopic will not be renaming any of the battles of Lord of the Rings or the Flame Wars of TMP :)
As for the historical renaming of things its all fear of who won originally IMP.
Real historical perspectives leaves it original and un varnished. I guess renaming a town 3 times, that's typical of trying to cut a town away from its historical past.
The rewriting of history to suit modern sensitivities is like the raping of war grave sites of their brass plaques, and selling the metal for scrap, thus making the soldiers who are bured there fortgotten (True and sad story)

its all fear of who won originally IMP.

IMP??? Not an acronym I am aware of. Please elucidate!

My mistake I meant 'IMO' (big thumb little keyboard on Blackberry :+) maybe I should use FMP 'from my perspective' :)

My couple of kroner is that battles should be called it's title at the time.

That being said, I am in favour of using the native language name where it was fought, rather than an English version, provided I can pronounce it :)

For entire wars, I think in most cases, there's a commonly accepted name though I could be persuaded to use alternates in use at the time for flavour purposes.

edit: The one exception to the above rule is:

If people get mad about a change being "PC" then definitely change it just to watch them get mad.

This reminds me of the imbroglio that results whenever you get partisans arguing over what to call what is commonly known and called the American Civil War (aka the War Between the States and some other very subjective terms). Myself, I wonder if "civil war" is an accurate term. Technically, wouldn't you define a civil war as a struggle between rival factions to control a single government? The English Civil War is that. The ACW, not really. One group of states formed a de facto sovereign nation and battled to maintain its existence. The Confederates weren't trying to seize the government of the entire Union. This was really a failed war of independence, or a rebellion, if you want. Wars of independence that succeed are usually called that, failures are deemed rebellions.

I have seen some mention of the English Civil War (or Wars) being referred to as The War of the Three Kingdoms, which I think has a decided panache about it, even if it never displaces the familiar term.

And the long series of brawls between the French and British from the late 17th century thru the early 19th century I have seen referred to as The Second Hundred Years War, which is also good at placing those clashes into a wider and far-sweeping context.

In more modern usages, I wonder if history will refer to the First and the Second Gulf Wars? (Iraq) Or looking at Afghanistan, I reckon we are now in the end game of what I personally call the Fifth Afghan War. The first three are known to history and were fought between the Afghans and the British in the 1800s and early 1900s. The Fourth would be the Afghans versus the Soviets in the 1980s and the Fifth started in 2001.

Let me give you an example with the issues with naming, and why you should not jump to the defense of one or other name as the "right" one.

The fighting between the Kingdom of Greece and the Turkish Nationalist movement between 1919-1922 is know by four different names depending on the audience.

The Greeks call it the Asia Minor Campaign, or the Asia Minor Disaster. The names are on purpose chosen to do two things

1) Place the Greek experience as paramount, and especially that of disaster

2) Completely de-legitimize the idea of the existence of a Turkish Nation, or Turkish National Idea.

The Turks call collectively all the fighting between the Kemalists Nationalists and foreign and domestic opponents as the Turkish War of Independence. It too has specific goals

1) To put the Turkish Nationalist experience as paramount, and especially the idea of independence from the Ottoman Past and the Western Powers and their porxies.

2) To bundle up all and de-legitimise the reasons for fighting the Kemalists (including Anatolian Greek, Pontic Greek and Armenian irredentism, or independence movements)as just part of a great Western Imperialist invasion.

On a global academic field, the war is called the Greek-Turkish War of 1919-1922 and considered different from the Franco-Turkish war of the same period (in Cicilian Armenia, or Antalya).

So which name is the "right" according to you? Should I refer it as Asia Minor Campaign to my Turkish students, should I call it the Turkish War of Independence when I talk to Greeks? Or should I impose one of those two terms on the global academic community?

Names are subjective and represent much more than simply naming conventions, and many are chosen on purpose for very specific non-historical reasons. To somehow consider some of them more "hallowed" than others is to ignore that fact, or on subjective grounds declare one imposition somehow "better" than the other.

In that specific instance, why not call it the Greek-Turkish War 1919-22 unless you wish to demonstrate some partisanship for one side or the other.

Any politically sensitive war needs to be dealt with considerately in the presence of one or more of the relevant parties.

As aside, the Greek-Turkish land border was the most heavily defended border I have ever corssed, never seen so many dug in tanks, artillery pieces, minefields and obstacle belts. It was a while back mind. Good job we are all on the same side eh:)

Martin,

Nations don't have friends, they have interests.

Sadly appears to be true in history…

Martin

Yes, I served on that border. It is not as fortified as it used to be, but the Egnatia International Road is still heavily fortified.

The rumors were that both sides war-plans included massive violations of Bulgarian territory to flank the Evros positions.

As for the naming, yes that is the attitude I use when talking to fellow academics. But with students many of them will not be sure what you talk about if you do not use the folk names. I just mention the other sides names as well.

Piper909

Excellent point on the ACW – I have never thought of it like that before, but I think you are spot on – it was a failed war of independence rather than a true civil war.

In a similar-ish way, (and not that I advocate changing the name) I tend to think of the Boer War as the South African Civil War – for the opposite reason. Sure, it was not a true civil war, but the war formed the country of South Africa (something both sides wanted one way or another), and the fighting was all about which faction would end up dominating it. I would suggest thinking of it in those terms is a good deal more accurate than thinking of it having simply been fought between (eg) the British and the Boers.

The War of Jenkins' Big Toe?

KTravlos / Martin Rapier

This might be a very silly question, but are there those who would even consider the name, the 'Greek-Turkish War of 1919-1922' to show 'favouritism' to one side over the other? Would some insist, perhaps, that it should instead be called the 'Turkish-Greek War'? Is there an established way of deciding on the order in which the combatants are named? Alphabetically? Or something else?

There is a move in South Africa to refer to the likes of the Boer War and the Zulu War as the Anglo-Boer War and the Anglo-Zulu War – and, as usual, this seems to have some sort of political cause behind it.

This reminds me of the imbroglio that results whenever you get partisans arguing over what to call what is commonly known and called the American Civil War (aka the War Between the States and some other very subjective terms). Myself, I wonder if "civil war" is an accurate term. Technically, wouldn't you define a civil war as a struggle between rival factions to control a single government? The English Civil War is that. The ACW, not really. One group of states formed a de facto sovereign nation and battled to maintain its existence. The Confederates weren't trying to seize the government of the entire Union. This was really a failed war of independence, or a rebellion, if you want. Wars of independence that succeed are usually called that, failures are deemed rebellions.

Rival factions were fighting over control of the government in the southern states. A civil war does not have to be a war over the entire nation.

"it was a failed war of independence rather than a true civil war"

It's also been called the War of Secession, probbaly for that reason.

"This might be a very silly question, but are there those who would even consider the name, the 'Greek-Turkish War of 1919-1922' to show 'favouritism' to one side over the other? Would some insist, perhaps, that it should instead be called the 'Turkish-Greek War'? Is there an established way of deciding on the order in which the combatants are named? Alphabetically? Or something else?"

The only thing close to a convention that I have read off is that the defeated side's name is supposed to go first (I do not remember where I read it, its two decades now), though it was been broken with the Russo-Turkish Wars

Thus

Sino-Japanese War of 1895

Spanish-American War

Franco-Prussian War

Austro-Prussian War

Greco-Turkish War of 1897

Greco-Turkish War of 1919-1922

Russo-Japanese War

etc

"This might be a very silly question, but are there those who would even consider the name, the 'Greek-Turkish War of 1919-1922' to show 'favouritism' to one side over the other? Would some insist, perhaps, that it should instead be called the 'Turkish-Greek War'? Is there an established way of deciding on the order in which the combatants are named? Alphabetically? Or something else?"

The only thing close to a convention that I have read off is that the defeated side's name is supposed to go first (I do not remember where I read it, its two decades now), though it was been broken with the Russo-Turkish Wars

Thus

Sino-Japanese War of 1895

Spanish-American War

Franco-Prussian War

Austro-Prussian War

Greco-Turkish War of 1897

Greco-Turkish War of 1919-1922

Russo-Japanese War

etc

I actually know the Boer wars as Anglo-Boer wars at least since 1995, you sure that is new?

Boer Wars or Zulu Wars is problematic for many reasons

among them

how do you differentiate between Zulu civil wars, or Zulu wars with other African tribes, from their Wars with Settlers or the British Empire? Those too could easily be named Zulu Wars.

New-ish, yes. 1995 is pretty new bearing in mind the war finished 93 years earlier! Pakenham's account (1979) and all those I can think of prior to that refer to it simply as the Boer War. I am sure someone will come up with one I have not thought of, however.

Re. your other point, you are quite right, but one could make a similar observation about (eg) the First World War – there are other wars which are just as deserving of that title. However, we all 'know' that the First World War is the one fought between 1914 and 1918, just as we all 'know' that when someone says 'the Boer War', they mean the one fought between 1899-1902 (not one of the others) and that when he says 'the Zulu War', he means the one fought in 1879. I don't think there is any confusion over this, or certainly not enough to warrant changing these established names for that reason. They have been good enough for a century or so, so I really don't think there is an issue on that front.

Interestingly, and following your point in your previous post, if we accept these 'new' names, then they also buck the trend of the loser's name going first. The Anglo-Afghan Wars (or at least two of them) are also an exception, though I think there is a tendency to always put 'Anglo' first – just seems to sound better that way?

1857. Certainly there was mutiny, but the conflict went well beyond that. Civil populations can't mutiny, nor can native troops not in service of the HEIC or the Crown. Rebellion is a far more accurate term, as is Uprising.

On the other hand, deeming the events of 1857 to be "India's First War of Independence" is a bit of fatuous nationalistic myth-making. Besides the fact that the War involved only a minority of the territory and population of modern day India, it dissembles by implying that all of the subcontinent was under British rule. In my experience, the existence and nature of Indian "Native States" during the 19th and 20th Centuries is either ignored or manipulated to suit the modern Indian nationalist narrative.

Ironically, a Hindu narrative in what were (in all three of the main areas, I believe) overwhelmingly Muslim uprisings, with Hindu troops playing a prominent role in suppressing them.

"just as we all 'know' that when someone says 'the Boer War', they mean the one fought between 1899-1902 (not one of the others) and that when he says 'the Zulu War', he means the one fought in 1879."

Who is this we? Are you really sure about it? Would a member of the Zulu, Bantu tribes have that assumption? Would a Madagascaran? A Namimbian? I fear you are making some very big assumptions about a universal audience being the same as a specific audience. Which is a problem if you are actually seeking a universal audience. Which is relevant to wargamers.

Let me give you another example. The term War of the Pacific has a very different meaning if you are in South or North America. You cannot assume it means the same for all possible audiances.

"They have been good enough for a century or so, so I really don't think there is an issue on that front."

Many things and concepts that were good enough for a century or more, are now not, and many for a good reason. Longevity is not sufficient as a defense of use.

Again this is a simple issue of audience. Do you want a particularist audience (Greeks or Turks, Anglo-Africans or Affrikaners? White South Africans or Black South Africans) or a universal one (humanity, all South Africans etc). This holds for states and their symbols, and for wargamers and wargamer rules writers.

On the naming convention, it is not a iron rule. And I bet a lot of choices were on cosmetic grounds. But I still think the defeated-victor template is a better one than many other options.

But again even social scientists fail at following good rules

look for example at the naming of wars, especially Extra-State and Non-State included in correlates of war (1000+ battle deaths to count). Go Available Datasets-> New COW War Data->New COW War List

correlatesofwar.org

Interesting points, and I see where you are coming from, but I think you are taking this to something of an extreme now. Will renaming (eg) 'the Boer War' as 'the Anglo-Boer War' help an Eskimo know which war you meant? What about someone who can't read English? Will the average Congolese pygmy know what the word 'Anglo' means? What about someone who can't read at all? Even adding dates will not help – some cultures use different calendars, so – to use your argument – it would be terribly presumptuous to start using 'our' years. You are never going to find a name which EVERYONE will find accessible.

And the problem is that one can always find fault with the 'new' names too – should it be 'the Anglo-Boer War' or 'the Second Anglo-Boer War'? But was it really the second conflict between 'the British' and 'the Boers'? Certainly not.

Others prefer 'the South African War' – but that is even less specific. Some on the lunatic fringe of Afrikanerdom even claim it should be re-named as 'the English War' – because, apparently, 'the English were the aggressor' – something which is not even true, which will hardly help identify it to anyone, and would be pandering to their bizarre view of history.

So what would your suggestion be in this case?

All-in-all, I see no real advantage to changing established names, currently in wide-spread use in the English language.

There are no right models, only models that are less wrong than the extant ones as we say in political science :p

The '1st & 2nd' Gulf Wars should really be termed the '2nd & 3rd' Gulf Wars, as the Iran-Iraq War was frequently referred to in press and literature of the 1980s as 'The Gulf War' and can therefore be accurately referred to as the '1st Gulf War'.

Others prefer 'the South African War' – but that is even less specific. Some on the lunatic fringe of Afrikanerdom even claim it should be re-named as 'the English War' – because, apparently, 'the English were the aggressor' – something which is not even true, which will hardly help identify it to anyone, and would be pandering to their bizarre view of history.

I've often wondered about this – didn't they "declare war on the British Empire" and invade Cape Colony thinking the rest of Europe was going to pitch in on their side?

"This might be a very silly question, but are there those who would even consider the name, the 'Greek-Turkish War of 1919-1922' to show 'favouritism' to one side over the other? Would some insist, perhaps, that it should instead be called the 'Turkish-Greek War'? Is there an established way of deciding on the order in which the combatants are named? Alphabetically? Or something else?"

I suspect it has more to do with the ability to contract certain countries names in English. The various Russo-Turkish Wars of the 18thC and the 1877-78 wars all went in favour of the Russians.

Was the Great War ever called the First World War before 1939?

As I am sure you are aware the term was first used around 1916.

At any time while it was being fought, was that war called the Seven Years War? "We only have to hold out 3 more years and it will be over!"

Why would it need any name at all while it was being fought, other than "the war"? I don't refer to my current car as "my Ford Mondeo" as "my car" is all I need. I don't give an address every time I talk about my home.

It is only when another war is entered that a name for the previous one is needed.