Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: Naming armies  (Read 274 times)

martin goddard

  • RFCM Admin Supporter
  • Hog the Limelight
  • *
  • Posts: 2199
    • View Profile
Naming armies
« on: September 07, 2018, 09:54:31 AM »
In gaming, many armies are given names from a very English perspective.  This is expected, as  miniature gaming seems to be a very Anglo activity (?)  I base this on the fact that there are a  lot of wargame manufacturers in the Anglo world. An example would be that the Chinese ancient world gets far fewer army lists than the Roman empire. The Chinese armies cover a much longer period.

However, the one that gives me cause for worry, is that ranges of figures are called "muslim XXX" by some ignorant types. It would be cleverer to name the country and military genre of that army. An example might be "army of the caliphate of xxx under the leadership of xxxx".


Maybe there should be a range of figures called "Christians of the middle ages", "Animalistic American armies", "meat eating medieval armies"  and "angry armies of Northern Europe". Why not just make all ECW armies the same and call them "christian armies of the 17th century", good enough description?

Sean Clark

  • RFCM Admin Supporter
  • Hog the Limelight
  • *
  • Posts: 1463
  • In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king
    • View Profile
    • Buckets of Dice
Re: Naming armies
« Reply #1 on: September 07, 2018, 05:53:26 PM »
I suspect this is a legacy of WRG army lists from the very early days. These names have become ubiquitous throughout....which of course doesn't make it right and could be seen as lazy on the part of list writers. Not sure abour more.modern ancient rules like Mortem et Glorium or War and Conquest for instance.

Colonel Kilgore

  • RFCM Admin Supporter
  • Hog the Limelight
  • *
  • Posts: 2258
    • View Profile
Re: Naming armies
« Reply #2 on: September 07, 2018, 07:29:11 PM »
Also possibly that the sculptors didn't have access to lots of distinguishing details of people that lived in far-off places, for which literary and pictorial evidence might be harder to obtain?

Thus most Hun-like people are "steppe warriors" and others of a non-Christian persuasion are lumped together as "Muslims", against which we have much more readily-available sources for the Romans and Crusaders that fought them.

In this situation, why have lots of different army lists for figures that essentially look the same?

Leman

  • Supporter 2019
  • Hog the Limelight
  • *
  • Posts: 1066
  • If it's too hard, I can't do it.
    • View Profile
Re: Naming armies
« Reply #3 on: October 06, 2018, 10:43:22 AM »
There is of course the other side of the coin where the army has been given a very specific name, eg Aq Qoyunlu Turcoman - which is utterly meaningless to me, and also unpronounceable. It also has a ring of “Aren’t I right on and also very clever.” And no, it doesn’t make me want to rush off and look it up on wikipedia, but rather I ignore it and move on. TBH I have no cultural empathy with non-Europeans so wouldn’t game whoever they are anyway.