Minor Semantic Rant

[Altius]

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

[Altius]

There, I’ve said it. 🙂

Where there is fire, we will carry gasoline

[Rules Junkie Jim]

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.

[General Slade]

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).

 

 

[Northern Monkey]

Rules Junkie Jim wrote:

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/

[Cameronian]

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."

[Nick the Lemming]

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

Glory Eagles de l'Empereur! blog

[Altius]

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

[Gaz045]

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

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

[Piyan Glupak]

Cameronian wrote:

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.

[Nic Wright]

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 

http://irregularwars.blogspot.co.uk/

[Altius]

“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

[Nic Wright]

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

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

http://irregularwars.blogspot.co.uk/

[Cameronian]

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."

[Cerdic]

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’?

http://28mmreview.blogspot.co.uk

[Author]

Posts