Home Forums Ancients Minor Semantic Rant

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 15 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #18889
    AltiusAltius
    Participant

    I just wanted to say that I dislike the term “Biblical” in reference to the period. Not that I have anything against the period itself, nor the Bible per se. In fact, I’ve got 4 armies that fall within that period. It’s just that I find the term inaccurate and limiting. Personally, I lean towards “Bronze Age”, but that might be just as inaccurate.

    Where there is fire, we will carry gasoline

    #18891
    AltiusAltius
    Participant

    There, I’ve said it. 🙂

    Where there is fire, we will carry gasoline

    #18917
    Rules Junkie JimRules Junkie Jim
    Participant

    I get a bit that way about periods named after civil wars; English, American, Spanish. It makes me feel bad not only for wars of the same era that don’t hog the limelight in the same way, but also civil wars that don’t get their own bespoke period. I recognise this pattern of thinking as a Flaw, and I’d like to be rid of it, but I have my suspicions that it is closely linked to the fact that I wargame at all, and may even be closely associated with being a man. Heigh ho.

    #18922
    General SladeGeneral Slade
    Participant

    I don’t like Biblical either. Half the book doesn’t get a look in.  It should be Old Testament (which isn’t any better but may be more accurate).

     

     

    #18923
    Northern MonkeyNorthern Monkey
    Participant

    I get a bit that way about periods named after civil wars; English, American, Spanish. It makes me feel bad not only for wars of the same era that don’t hog the limelight in the same way, but also civil wars that don’t get their own bespoke period.

    This! This really bugs me too, mainly with the English Civil War, their was at least half a dozen before the “famous” one, why isn’t it ECW VII(or whatever actual numeral) that would sound way cooler IMO

    My attempt at a Blog: http://ablogofwar.blogspot.co.uk/

    #18953
    CameronianCameronian
    Participant

    I much prefer the term ‘Chariot Age’ for the ‘Biblical’.  For the former ECW, ‘The War of the Three Kingdoms’ is all round better.

    'The time has come" The walrus said. "To talk of many things: Of shoes--and ships--and sealing-wax--Of cabbages--and kings--And why the sea is boiling hot--And whether pigs have wings."

    #18976
    Nick the Lemming
    Participant

    Imagine what it’s like for a medievalist, when everyone around you talks of the Dark Ages…

    #18978
    AltiusAltius
    Participant

    Well, that’s another one. I know I’m guilty of tossing around the term Dark Ages pretty freely.

    I understand that all of these oversimplifications are just shorthand that we wargamers use for convenience. Most of us aren’t historians, and I get that. I’m really not judging anyone harshly over such a minor thing. Still, it’s like nails on chalkboard when I hear it.

    Where there is fire, we will carry gasoline

    #18982
    Gaz045
    Participant

    And there was I looking up ‘Minor Semantic’ in my army lists……………….

    "Even dry tree bark is not bitter to the hungry squirrel"

    #19030
    Piyan GlupakPiyan Glupak
    Participant

    I much prefer the term ‘Chariot Age’ for the ‘Biblical’. For the former ECW, ‘The War of the Three Kingdoms’ is all round better.

    Those terms seem to me to fit the bill very well.

    #20246
    Nic WrightNic Wright
    Participant

    The problem with rebranding ‘Biblical’ with Bronze Age, is that a lot of ‘Biblical’ armies (most Assyrian armies that get used for example) are Iron Age. That said, I really struggle with the term for all the same reasons stated above. In the same way, it makes me squirm to hear people here (Northern Ireland) refer to the whole of the Middle East the ‘Holy Lands’.

    Chariot Era may be a way forward but of course chariots were used both before and after….

    I also can’t agree more about the Early Medieval period which the Victorians tried to make us call the Dark Ages. But while I’m on a tangent, how do Americans (et al.) feel about the Victorian period?

    Sorry, not helping much here. But feeling the frustrations 

    #20267
    AltiusAltius
    Participant

    “Chariot Age” seems to make more sense to me, but I’m sure if we wait a few minutes, someone else will come along to point out the inaccuracy of that too. 🙂

    “But while I’m on a tangent, how do Americans (et al.) feel about the Victorian period?”

    I’m not sure how I should feel about it. I hear the term fairly often. I believe it’s referring to the period of Queen Victoria’s reign, is that correct? To me, it indicates the late 19th Century, commonly referred to by wargamers as “The Colonial Period”. Another one of those terms.

    Where there is fire, we will carry gasoline

    #20270
    Nic WrightNic Wright
    Participant

    Indeed, 1837-1901. Very specific in period, but just a tad Anglocentric.

    … and don’t get me started on ‘Colonial’….!

    #20285
    CameronianCameronian
    Participant

    Post-Napoleonic 19th century.  Couldn’t be clearer than that! 

    'The time has come" The walrus said. "To talk of many things: Of shoes--and ships--and sealing-wax--Of cabbages--and kings--And why the sea is boiling hot--And whether pigs have wings."

    #20403
    CerdicCerdic
    Participant

    See, ‘Colonial Period’, to a Brit, doesn’t really mean the same thing as ‘Victorian’. We had been stomping around the world oppressing people for a lot longer than that!

     

    Going back to the Biblical/Chariot thing. If the Greek and Roman era is known as the ‘Classical’ world, how about calling everything before that ‘Pre-Classical’?

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 15 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.