"Dark Ages should be accessible from Ancients Boards ..." Topic

… as well as Medieval Boards.

Self explanatory really.

At present, 'Dark Age' (which is of course a period of transition) only comes up under Medieval Boards … but clearly is as much ancient as medieval.

Arthur, The Byzantines, The Vikings …

I'd say you should be able to access it from either starting place – just like you can access 'Interwar' from either WWI or from WWII …

What say you?

Phil

Sure. And it shouldn't even be a poll. It's housekeeping.

On TMP, Ancients is defined as "up to 500AD"

Does Dark Ages start before 500AD?

Plenty of Dark Age themes run over the 500AD time band …

Just from an English perspective, the Anglo Saxon migration period runs, say, 400 to 600 … Most interpretations put the Roman end in Britain around 410.

OK, maybe the 500AD definition is wrong but I'm not in favour of such hard lines … ancient blurs in to Dark Age and I'm suggesting a poll to see if anyone else agrees that the transitional period is accessible from both 'Ancient Boards' and 'Medieval Boards' purely in the spirit of smooth navigation

Phil

Not to hijack,it's similar to discussions about the 1700 era: WSS is in the 18th century, while LOA,which ended THREE years earlier,is stuck in the "Renaissance",as if it belongs with Charles XIII and Fornovo.

On TMP, Ancients is defined as "up to 500AD"

Does Dark Ages start before 500AD?

I define "Ancients" as the period during which one can use Ancients rules in a wargame.
After all, this IS a wargaming site, n'est-ce pas? Hainna?
When I was an Ancients player in tournaments, I regularly played against Vikings or Normans with my Carthaginians or Mauryan Indians.
So, to me the official TMP definition is meaningless. The definition of the period should be by the games we play. And if this conflicts with anybody's cherished academic definition, change your definition.

People get their panties in a wad over the definition of "Renaissance" too. I have played Gush from the Wars of the Roses to the end of the English Civil War. So, as far as WARGAMING goes, that period is "Renaissance".
Of course for academic discussion, that definition is nonsense. But not for wargaming.

Medieval Boards – Yes

Ancients Boards – No

For me Ancients does not go beyond the fall of the Roman Empire the West, 476 AD.

Says someone who has regularly indicated he has no interest in either Ancient or Medieval …

Dark Ages could be called Early Medieval. You could say Dark ages lasted a very short time like 476 to 500 and then early medieval begins.

I was taught that 476 and earlier are Ancient times. I can remember having this conversation in college. Now that really was Ancient times.

All interesting points, of course

OK … Pre-Conquest England isn't Medieval … but that's a different topic …

This topic is simply about ease of navigation for ancient and medieval enthusiasts concerning a transitional period.

Phil

"Dark Ages" is not a term favoured by modern historians, who usually refer to it as " Early Medieval". As many sets of wargame rules claim to cover the period from 3000BCE to 1500CE, I think it perfectly reasonable that both Ancient and Medueval boards could cover the period. I'm with Phil on this one.

Well, we are not modern historians. We are wargamers.
This is not a request to define defiantly.
It's a request to make a board accessible through two logical mega boards.

Winston, did you read my last sentence? I think we actually are in agreement- anything on " Dark Ages" ought to be accessible through both Ancients and Medieval boards. Until the invention of gunpowder, most battles involved getting up close and personal and trying to stab, batter or similarly maim your opponent; details might have changed a bit, but the basic methods did not change for three or four thousand years. That is why most " Ancient" rules cover a wide period of history and why I agree with your " it's just housekeeping" point
We might be wargamers, but some of us are also historians, albeit amateur ones, so like to keep up to date on academic thinking. Not a question of "defining defiantly" (whatever that means; probably you were suffering from the same maladies as me- fat finger typing or misguided auto-correct)

Glad we're all in agreement, though.

One of the problems with being a historian is that most 'historians' think that whatever was the norm in their academic circle is the norm.

I was at university in the 70s and 80s and the norm would have been Dark Age but other people went through higher education at the same time and insist it has to be Early Medieval (just different universities/different professors/lecturers) …

But, for what it's worth, whether it's likeable or not, people know exactly what you mean when you say Dark Age, but are not quite certain when you say Early Medieval … does that mean e.g. in architecture, Romanesque? Which sounds like ancient … or Early Gothic (which sounds like Medieval but doesn't start til the 12th Century)?

Given Michael Wood's seminal BBC TV series In Search of the Dark Ages' (1980s but paperbacked c2006) and Waldemar Januszczak's more recent The Dark Ages: An Age of Light there's very little chance of the clean up squad scrubbing this traditional and universally understood terminology out of popular usage.

And with good reason, of course

But that's all an entirely different discussion.

Phil
hoping not to subvert his own thread !

If we had less boards, this wouldn't be a problem ;-)

I might add that "dark ages" is an anglo term.
Danish history books don't use it at all, that I've ever seen, and I want to say I haven't seen it used in German either but I am willing to be corrected on that front.

"Says someone who has regularly indicated he has no interest in either Ancient or medieval."

I don't remember saying that. I like both just fine. I don't game them much. We use "Lion Rampant." There are very few periods I dislike. I am just not a tournament fan. None of his is relevant to the current subject.

If you want to set up a link that's fine with me. Editor doesn't need mine or anyone else's permission. I just find the discussion of Medieval V. Dark ages interesting. I just do not like lumping them into ancients any more than I like ECW lumped into renaissance.

Dark Ages is a more sexy term that everyone in the HISORICAL gaming hobby recognizes. Figures are marketed and are categorized that way. So set up the links.

There are some historians who are wargamers.

Apologies if I was jumping to conclusions.

Agree about ECW, by the way, Rallynow (peculiar to call that period of warfare Renaissance ..) ..

Phil

Good news, by the way … TMP link …

Way more than half of all the respondents would call this intermediate period 'Dark Age' … more than 3 times as many prefering that terminology to 'Early Medieval'.

Hopefully that outcome will reinforce the 'ancient' connotations of the period and enable the uncontroversial tweak to be made to navigation.

A good day, anyway …

Phil

50 000BC-8000BC: hitting each other with rocks period.

8000BC-1490AD: hitting each other with sharp metal shards period.

1490AD-1890AD: shooting each other with lead balls and hitting each other with sharp metal shards period.

1890AD-Now AD: shooting each other with copper covered lead bullets period.