"What is "Historical" and how do you know it is?" Topic

In Academia, the word is "privileging." That is, an author will "privilege" a specific source or data supporting that source and discount others. How do you know which to "privilege" or use? Seems you have to define what "Historical" is before you define whatever it's going to be concatenated with (like "miniatures." So leave off the categories and consider only the question of "Historica1" – what is it? How is it perceived, verified, and approved. That's it really? Isn't it? What is "privileged." You can't dispute facts like "In May of 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue," but as far as motives, causality, belief, impressions-- it's all privileging isn't it?

Good grief…

Was the sea blue? Marine green or dark wine instead perhaps?

A source or statement that supports your thesis, ignoring the awkward bits, would be my suggestion.

concatenated?

A pretentious way of saying linked.

It was here. The battlefield was here. The Carthaginians defending the city were attacked by three Roman Legions. The Carthaginians were proud and brave but they couldn't hold. They were massacred. The Arab women stripped them of the tunics and swords, and lances. And the soldiers lay naked in the sun. 2000 years ago. I was here.
You don't believe me, do you Brad? You know what the poet said:
Through the travail of ages,
Midst the pomp and toils of war,
Have I fought and strove and perished
Countless times upon a star.
As if through a glass, and darkly
The age-old strife I see —
Where I fought in many guises, many names —
but always me.
Do you know who the poet was?
Me.
Patton To Omar Bradley at the ruins of Carthage.

Screw "Academics" and their special vocabulary.
As Justice Stewart said, "I may not be able to define it but I sure know it when I see it. "

Seems to be some sort of virus infecting some of the posters here lately.

I wasn't planning on having my wargaming peer reviewed, so if it seems historical to me and my immediate gaming acquaintances, that is good enough for me. Besides we can have fun demonstrating our intellectual superiority based on what book we read last about the facing colour of Blankshire regiment.

"Historical" means it happened before we were born, it involves non-made up nations, uses weapons of the time, and almost certainly doesn't have dragons or cyborgs in it.

That's how it is defined. Thanks for asking!

So my Rogue Trader space marines are not historical?

As a history graduate (thanks, University of Kent) I learned how to evaluate different sources to derive what I considered to be as near to the facts as I could get. Where many sources would validate an event, that was what I considered historical.

Of course it gets more vague the further back in history you go. That's where best guessing and filling in the blanks with what seems plausible comes in. For example, Tom Holland's very enjoyable and interesting book "Rubicon" is a straight narrative of the late Roman republic and what he does there is not offer up conflicting accounts, he weighs up what seems to him to be most plausible so his story from Marius and Sulla to Augustus flows as a straight line narrative. It may not be the height of academic study, but it does inform and grip the reader.

Zargon, not yet. In 40,000 years they will be.

However Robotech stuff is historical. That took place in 1999 or so.

Historical – most simply put, of history.

I don't decide what is historical. That which is historical, is such, independent of my considerations. My capacity to embrace historical truth or fact is corrupted by my subjectivity, which is incorporated into me as part of my design.

In trying to perceive historical truth, I consider that which is presented to me, challenge it through various methods, and accept that which I cannot dismiss as a result of my challenges.

I do not decide what is historical, I only corrupt that which I perceive.

And then, I play games with toys.

Is much of Ancient or Medieval gaming "Historical?"

Having seen say Minoans fighting French Ordinance (and beating them) I'd ague that was not historical,

We would not fight say a War of the Spanish Succession French army 1704 against a Prussian Army of 1870. So why is this acceptable in another period?

Not trying to pick a fight Ancient gamers, I've wondered about this for many years.

Because it is not made by Games Workshop?

Having seen say Minoans fighting French Ordinance (and beating them) I'd argue that was not historical,

And most Ancient wargamers would agree.

I'd bet on the Minoans to win that fight anyway – all those charging lancers mounted on trained bulls …

Ancients wargamers collect armies like some dogs collect fleas, but one of the challenges was that at least in the early days, there was limited information, and limited figure availability. And people wanted variety. you want elephants.. cool! Chariots? Yee-hah! It took a long time to collect and paint them, so when you organise a tournament, if it's a Napoleonic tournament – 1805 Austrians play 1812 Russians. If it's WW2 you end up with Heer vs SS.

Friendly games we do our best to get historical matchups, but tourneys all bets are off.

My interest in Warhammer and 40K is now very much historical.

Well put irishserb.

"Historical". Hysterical. Pretty close to the same thing.

Religions are based on "historical proofs", no, really, they are. The "preferred" book is beyond criticism because it is revealed. What? You gonna critique GOD??

Some "gods" of academia possess highfalutin words. They are worshipped above the other "gods". If you don't worship, you are relegated to pariah status.

Some "gods" declare lesser gods anathema. YMMV, but that won't save you.

I game and curse the dice, the "gods of miniature war". The older I get the more I curse. And the less distinction I can find between make believe and history….

As Justice Stewart said, "I may not be able to define it but I sure know it when I see it."

He was talking about legally, objectively identifying pornography and couldn't. That's all fine and good until you want to do it, actually create it. Then it gets really practical and 'objective' really fast.

I game and curse the dice, the "gods of miniature war". The older I get the more I curse. And the less distinction I can find between make believe and history….

Sadly, I see that as one of the unhappy products of our "Historical Wargaming." I tend to blame the game designers for that.

OSchmidt:

Seems you have to define what "Historical" is before you define whatever it's going to be concatenated with (like "miniatures." So leave off the categories and consider only the question of "Historica1" – what is it? How is it perceived, verified, and approved.

Well, if you are a historian, you have to answer that question before you start.

The same is true for the wargame designer. The designer has answered that question BEFORE he starts designing his historical wargame. So for that game, the question of what is 'Historical' has been answered and the basis for that game system.

That's it really? Isn't it? What is "privileged." You can't dispute facts like "In May of 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue," but as far as motives, causality, belief, impressions-- it's all privileging isn't it?

If you are sayin that Columbus's motives etc are in dispute, he has his journals that are pretty clear on those issues. It is also the journals that establish that he sailed in May of 1492. And I am sure there are those who will 'dispute' that too.

All we know of history is what is written down, still standing or dug up. That is the basis for our historical understanding. So, whatever we think about history, it has to be based on that. If it isn't there, we can't know except for some inference.