malthaussen
Recruit

I used to be a contributor to a soi-disant "history" board, but the attraction paled quite quickly. Pourquoi? Because it was full of "Who was better, Gnoflacks or Pugsees" type posts, and posts like "Who is your favorite historical character," and "Who is the evillest (sic) character in history," und so weiter. Clio weeps, but Thalia is laughing (as usual).
I wonder why this should be? History is badly taught in the USA, this I know from personal experience, and although I am not qualified to comment on the pedagoguery of other countries, I doubt it's very well taught elsewhere, either, because history is a very difficult subject to do well. It's quite easy to do poorly. Reduced to mere memorization of dates and facts, it fits easily into standardized test formats, and is generally considered one of the most boring and irrelevant subjects in the Liberal Arts, themselves considered boring and irrelevant by all right-thinking people. Such a shame, really, because history can be a lot of fun. If you can control your gag reflex.
I launch this rant, because lo and behold, we have here a soi-disant "history" section that is dedicated to posts such as the above. Now, children, I'm all for fun and games. Whatever gets you through the night. I'd prefer, however, that you'd call your games something other than "history." "Who is better, Samurai or Knights" is an entertaining subject, and may provoke a lot of discussion, but history it is not.
History is not personality journalism, it is not figuring the over/under on a speculative matchup between military systems that existed in widely-separated spheres of time and space. History is about critical interpretation of evidence, primarily textual, in an effort to find out (trivially) what really happened, and (more importantly), to try to figure out what makes people tick. That's why it's one of the Humanities, doncher know.
As applied to the game MB, "history" can be addressed to answer certain questions of bare fact: eg, was this helm in use at such-and-such a date, and thus add to the "realism" of the game, but it is pretty well useless, since the game isn't about history, it's merely set in an historical context. Insofar as the devs and modders want to "get it right," history may be of use to them, but otherwise it has no application. Nor does the game teach anything about history (except, possibly, what helm may have been in vogue at such-and-such a date, provided the designer of that helm has done his homework), which is quite all right, as it makes no claim to do so.
So, Malthaussen you evil troll, you, what would be an appropriate subject for a "history" section? That's a tough question, since "history" these days is so closely caught up in politics and prejudice that historical discussion (which is, after all, all about interpretation to begin with) generally leads to flame-wars, frustrations, and moderators banning users en masse. But let's try a simple, relevant historical question, which may not be so inflammatory.
The game depicts a social and military milieu that is essentially chaotic, with bands of freebooters roaming about, raiders raiding, chaos on all sides, and little, if any central direction. In this way it resembles, somewhat, Europe during the period of the latter 100 Year's War, or the 30 Year's War without the gunpowder and religion. What are the factors leading to the rise of nation-states and the regulation of this generalized chaos into more devastating, but less widespread (usually) occurrences? What is the literature on the subject? (always a vital historical question, since history is waged in books and sources, primary and secondary) You have one hour. Good luck.
-- Mal
I wonder why this should be? History is badly taught in the USA, this I know from personal experience, and although I am not qualified to comment on the pedagoguery of other countries, I doubt it's very well taught elsewhere, either, because history is a very difficult subject to do well. It's quite easy to do poorly. Reduced to mere memorization of dates and facts, it fits easily into standardized test formats, and is generally considered one of the most boring and irrelevant subjects in the Liberal Arts, themselves considered boring and irrelevant by all right-thinking people. Such a shame, really, because history can be a lot of fun. If you can control your gag reflex.
I launch this rant, because lo and behold, we have here a soi-disant "history" section that is dedicated to posts such as the above. Now, children, I'm all for fun and games. Whatever gets you through the night. I'd prefer, however, that you'd call your games something other than "history." "Who is better, Samurai or Knights" is an entertaining subject, and may provoke a lot of discussion, but history it is not.
History is not personality journalism, it is not figuring the over/under on a speculative matchup between military systems that existed in widely-separated spheres of time and space. History is about critical interpretation of evidence, primarily textual, in an effort to find out (trivially) what really happened, and (more importantly), to try to figure out what makes people tick. That's why it's one of the Humanities, doncher know.
As applied to the game MB, "history" can be addressed to answer certain questions of bare fact: eg, was this helm in use at such-and-such a date, and thus add to the "realism" of the game, but it is pretty well useless, since the game isn't about history, it's merely set in an historical context. Insofar as the devs and modders want to "get it right," history may be of use to them, but otherwise it has no application. Nor does the game teach anything about history (except, possibly, what helm may have been in vogue at such-and-such a date, provided the designer of that helm has done his homework), which is quite all right, as it makes no claim to do so.
So, Malthaussen you evil troll, you, what would be an appropriate subject for a "history" section? That's a tough question, since "history" these days is so closely caught up in politics and prejudice that historical discussion (which is, after all, all about interpretation to begin with) generally leads to flame-wars, frustrations, and moderators banning users en masse. But let's try a simple, relevant historical question, which may not be so inflammatory.
The game depicts a social and military milieu that is essentially chaotic, with bands of freebooters roaming about, raiders raiding, chaos on all sides, and little, if any central direction. In this way it resembles, somewhat, Europe during the period of the latter 100 Year's War, or the 30 Year's War without the gunpowder and religion. What are the factors leading to the rise of nation-states and the regulation of this generalized chaos into more devastating, but less widespread (usually) occurrences? What is the literature on the subject? (always a vital historical question, since history is waged in books and sources, primary and secondary) You have one hour. Good luck.
-- Mal