Rumour has it that the rest of the world also existed at this time. I wonder why gamers confine themselves so heavily to Britain. The armies aren't that interesting, for a start, especially if you look at what was happening in the near east and in China. Is it just too much knights of the Round Table in early years?
It's a handy name, that's about all. I think there have been too many years of bad history taught to change it. A lot of it is based on lies of catholic church, hiding the strength of the celtic church. All dark until the light of Rome returned.
I think, Mr Kitty, you mistake "interesting" for "exotic".
Britain in the "Dark Ages" was a very interesting place. It always amuses me that the "early Dark Ages" was spent fighting off the dastardly Saxons, and the "late Dark Ages" was the good Saxons fighting off the dastardly Normans and Vikings.
Scotland was a very interesting, but not much observed part of the country.
But not exotic. There wasn't even any Irn Bru.
No, I have the habit of using the word I intend. Lots of melee infantry with close-quarters arms, a few missile foot sometimes, and almost no mounted. They can look fun, but tactically there's not much real interest. It's like bridge with no trumps. A "Johnny One-note" period.
QuoteLots of melee infantry with close-quarters arms, a few missile foot sometimes, and almost no mounted. They can look fun, but tactically there's not much real interest.
That just about sums it up in terms of wargaming, the period itself is facinating, the creation of modern Western Europe from the ruins of the Western Roman Empire. The period got it's unfortunate name and reputation from the Victorians who saw nothing interesting between the Legions leaving Britain and William the Conqueror arriving. Modern scolarship has advanced a lot since then but the name remains and your description of warfare is pretty accurate, certainly all the rules and army lists I'm aware of are very limited.
The period makes for nice skirmish games, I've played and enjoyed both Saga and Dux Britaniarum with the latter having the advantage of not having the 'Vikings with Danish Axes' cliche and being designed arround a very simple but workable campaign system.
If you want something from the Dark Ages which is far from dark I'd recommend looking Eastwards to the Byzantine Empire. While Britain and Western Europe was languishing the Byzantines were developing the Roman Empire way beyond the Imperial Legions of Ancient Rome.
The Byzantines had a full range of troop types and fielded big armies against some of the most colourfull opponents in history, ideal for 10mm games. The history is also very exciting, the fall of Persia and the rise of Islam.
(http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa242/danandsan/Byz_Xmas13_3.jpg) (http://s198.photobucket.com/user/danandsan/media/Byz_Xmas13_3.jpg.html)
The Byzantines ready to ride out
(http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa242/danandsan/CrusaderssuprisetheSeljuks2.jpg) (http://s198.photobucket.com/user/danandsan/media/CrusaderssuprisetheSeljuks2.jpg.html)
To face (among many others) the Armies of the Prophet.
Oh, yes, I'm crazy about the East Romans. I'm not even that hostile to dark ages games; just irritated that it's all the same. Why not a bit more of the Ice Slaughter and less of Stamford Bridge? Britain is not the only country of historical significance.
Quote from: FierceKitty on 15 April 2014, 07:04:03 AM
No, I have the habit of using the word I intend. Lots of melee infantry with close-quarters arms, a few missile foot sometimes, and almost no mounted. They can look fun, but tactically there's not much real interest. It's like bridge with no trumps. A "Johnny One-note" period.
I think the tactical manoeuvrability of armies in other eras or regions is over estimated, particularly by many wargames rules.
Druzhina
10th Century Illustrations of Costume & Soldiers (http://warfare2.netai.net/10C.htm)
Quote from: Druzhina on 15 April 2014, 08:48:32 AM
I think the tactical manoeuvrability of armies in other eras or regions is over estimated, particularly by many wargames rules.
Druzhina
10th Century Illustrations of Costume & Soldiers (http://warfare2.netai.net/10C.htm)
Makes you wonder why peltasts gained so much ground at the expense of hoplites, or skirmishing Turks often beat mailed religious fanatics,doesn't it?
Well I think the term Dark Ages in my mind describes Britain in the 5th-12th century . I am sure other places in the world have also had their 'Dark Ages' but at different times but I wouldn't know enough about them to say exactly when
As an aside
They think parts of Offa's Dyke was built 200 years earlier than previously thought
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-mid-wales-26921202
Quote from: FierceKitty on 15 April 2014, 07:04:03 AM
No, I have the habit of using the word I intend. Lots of melee infantry with close-quarters arms, a few missile foot sometimes, and almost no mounted. They can look fun, but tactically there's not much real interest. It's like bridge with no trumps. A "Johnny One-note" period.
Tactically, armies that are all, or largely, infantry are no more or less interesting than ones that are more mixed in composition.
Lets face it, the manoeuvring that many wargames armies indulge in is rather rarer in real life. Battles tend to consist of two lines of troops facing off and hacking and/or shooting at each other until one side breaks and runs. The lines may be a couple of hundred tribesmen facing each other over the local irrigation ditch or stretch from Switzerland to the sea. The one is not intrinsically more interesting than the other, though the challenges and techniques of the period may be wildly different.
Battles between completely mismatched combat styles - normally melee heavy vs missile heavy - are much less interesting to me.
Most of the interesting part of the battle is the actual campaign ie getting to the point where you win the battle. I think most battles are point and charge at the end of the day all the fancy manoeuvring comes long before that
Since noone living has actually participated in the type of combat we're talking about, I'm inclined to reserve judgment. But I've got this humility habit with the passage of years.
Quote from: FierceKitty on 15 April 2014, 07:04:03 AM
No, I have the habit of using the word I intend. Lots of melee infantry with close-quarters arms, a few missile foot sometimes, and almost no mounted. They can look fun, but tactically there's not much real interest. It's like bridge with no trumps. A "Johnny One-note" period.
... and two armies for the most part identical in composition (if we're tralking Britain.) That, to me, is what MAKES it fun. It is general against general, both trying to get the most out of the options available. It's like the ACW or late WWI Western Front. You have limits that mean that only an excellent general can make a decisive difference.
I agree though, that the Byzantines and their sundry enemies are most fascinating. The expolits of the Normans in Sicily are such fun! As a descendent of a Norseman, I find the exploits of the Vikings (sic) in America and Eastern Europe and Italy quite fascinating and worth a game or two.
I would agree that the English can only remember two dates, 1066 and 1966. However, cast your eye around and the Dark Ages in Western Europe can be very entertaining.
Tours 731 springs to mind
QuoteTours 731 springs to mind
Charles Martel defeating the islamic horde ? I think I've got that one down as the Battle of Poitiers 732. But it is a facinating battle, it's one of those I've got marked down as a possible game, I just need a few more (hundred) darkage blokes with spears.
One advantage of the dark ages in the West is that you can use lots of generic 'scruffy bloke with spear and shield' figures for most of the armies.
Quotelate WWI Western Front. You have limits that mean that only an excellent general can make a decisive difference.
I have to disagree a bit there, mid war there are severe limitations but by late 1917 developments in infantry tactics, armour, aircraft and above all artillery mean that there is a lot of options open to the general, all of which makes the late war so interesting and challenging.
Sorry your right 732..i think the battle is known by both names as its right in the middle of the two places..Arab scholars call it Battle of the Palace of Martyrs and arguments apparently are still ongoing of how important it was
Quote from: DanJ on 15 April 2014, 02:46:05 PM
I have to disagree a bit there, mid war there are severe limitations but by late 1917 developments in infantry tactics, armour, aircraft and above all artillery mean that there is a lot of options open to the general, all of which makes the late war so interesting and challenging.
I'll take that.
Quote from: fsn on 15 April 2014, 12:16:40 PM
I would agree that the English can only remember two dates,
I take great exeption to this FSN. I am English and I can remember
lots of dates.......
The one where I got more than I bargained for on the M11..... Had to stop on the hard shoulder
There was the date on the beach....I had no idea you could actually get sand in places like that
The very interesting date with Yvonne and Sharon..... still keep it in the family ;) :-S
The date I had at 18 with a woman twice my age ..... Phew that opened my eyes #:-S
The date I got cautioned on the undergroound ..... She did have a long skirt on so i am not sure how the ticket inspector knew, after all there are never enough seats on the underground even at 11pm. :-\
Then there was the blind date at the pub in Essex :-& :-& :-q
I could go on but I don't want to boast . And on most of them I was in the Dark for Ages :d
Quote from: Just a few Orcs on 15 April 2014, 03:46:36 PM
I could go on but I don't want to boast . And on most of them I was in the Dark for Ages :d
;D
Did none of them consider you worth keeping?
Quote from: FierceKitty on 15 April 2014, 04:09:29 PM
Did none of them consider you worth keeping?
Well the blind date definitely would have, but my standards may be low but not that low.
I was married to one of them for a nightmare 16 years. Best £150,000 i ever spent getting rid of her.
Then there was the date with the the person I am with now........As I have said before like you "I live the dream", so a definite keeper.
It seems that most historians today call the period 'The Early Middle Ages' in an attempt to shake off the pejorative overtones of the old name. Even back in 1967 it was being queried, the first question on the St Andrews University Bursary Competition history paper being, "How dark were the Dark Ages?" I'd certainly opt for Byzantium were I to wargame the period.
It has to be a 'something' Dark Age or a Dark Age in 'somewhere' because there was more than one: there was a Dark Age in Greece after the collapse of Bronze Age civilization. Early Medieval is preferable. Roman period, Viking Age etc also better than THE Dark Ages.
Quotethere was a Dark Age in Greece after the collapse of Bronze Age civilization
I think that's they key point here, the Victorians or possibly Georgians who coined the phrase saw it as the time after the fall of the Roman civilisation in Britain and before the arrival of the French (Norman) civilisation here. As for the definative article well if you're a Victorian then other places and times might have A dark age but only Britain can have THE Dark Ages.
Quote from: DanJ on 16 April 2014, 08:17:41 AM
As for the definative article well if you're a Victorian then other places and times might have A dark age but only Britain can have THE Dark Ages.
I think the Victorian view was " Your whole so called civilization was a Dark Age until you were lucky enough to have us turn up on your doorstep"
How Victorious were the Victorians?
QuoteHow Victorious were the Victorians?
Pretty much all conquering as long as the foe was armed with soft fruit, and even then it was likely to be a close run thing.
I must admit the Victorian campaigns aren't my strong suite but I get the impression there was a definate pattern of sending a few troops somewhere on the pretense of helping a local ruler, then having that force destroyed by the locals before returning in overwheming force to add a new part of the globe to The Empire.
I think that the Blackpowder rulebook lists most of the people the Victorian army fought and it includes just about someone from every letter of the alphabet.
Seems to me, gentlemen, we're trying that difficult feat on comesting one's Battenburg, yet have it remain on the salver.
To say that the Zulu army, the Ashanti, the Maori were without merit seems to be to reach for the ring of Britain bashing at the expense of sound history. Why don't we denigrate the Romans for taking out the Gauls because they had superior technology and discipline? Those naughty Prussians for using breach loaders against the poor French? America and the Vietnamese ...
Yes, the Brits had superior technology. However, they rarely had the numbers, nor the local knowledge, and the ordinary Tommy was often tiny street scum sent off to somewhere hot in a bloomin' big red coat with "kill me" emblazoned across it, and yet they won through in so many cases.
We do them a disservice to belittle their military achievements, even if we don't agree with the goals of their political masters.
"The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there" - L P Hartley
QuoteZulu army, the Ashanti, the Maori were without merit
I wouldn't say that any of these were without merit or that the British Soldier wasn't brave in situations which were often terrible. However many of those situations were either deliberately manufactured by politicians, often in existing colonies, or were the result of mismanagement by commanders who repeatedly underestimated the opposition.
The Victorians were doing the same as everyone else had done throughout history, they were just much better at it than anyone else had ever been, a unique combination of technology, lust for adventure, sheer greed and ruthless self confidence.
Quote from: DanJ on 16 April 2014, 01:24:29 PM
The Victorians were doing the same as everyone else had done throughout history, they were just much better at it than anyone else had ever been, a unique combination of technology, lust for adventure, sheer greed and ruthless self confidence.
And religious zealotry. Like you say, they just did what the Romans, Persian/Medes, Swedes et al have done, and doubtless the Americans, Russians and Chinese continue to do.