My feeling is that king lists and lists of battles/campaigns that don't say who they were against, or who won, is not as interesting or as good a use of the space/effort as expanding the general notes with events/anecdotes/characters that add flavour and, especially, sources (both primary and easily accessible modern). Perhaps also reference to modern literature/pop culture set in the period.
Surely some fan of the Medieval English can do better than:
"This list covers English armies in Britain from 1320 until the start of the Wars of the Roses."
I'll assume this intended as a constructive suggestion (although it could equally be taken as criticism!)...
There are 630 lists to do...
And none of this has cost anyone a penny!
A bit more gratitude wouldn't hurt...
Richard
I can only assume that LawrenceG is being ironic. I've found in the past that my irony and sarcasm really don't work on forums. I just stick to being passive aggressive now.
Quote from: LawrenceG on December 03, 2023, 11:23:54 PM
My feeling is that king lists and lists of battles/campaigns that don't say who they were against, or who won, is not as interesting or as good a use of the space/effort as expanding the general notes with events/anecdotes/characters that add flavour and, especially, sources (both primary and easily accessible modern). Perhaps also reference to modern literature/pop culture set in the period.
Surely some fan of the Medieval English can do better than:
"This list covers English armies in Britain from 1320 until the start of the Wars of the Roses."
It was an expression of opinion, not an assertion of what the authors should do*.
With 630 lists to do, I'd rather see the time spent on what I (intended constructively) suggested than on what I (non-ironically) thought was less interesting.
Not everyone may agree with me, so my post was mainly intended to start a discussion on where people would like the effort to go.
* Except that if you are going to list battles/campaigns it seems to me that at least the opponent and possibly result could be included with relatively little extra work for significant extra benefit.
The more historical inffo, the better IMO :)
The downside of course being the effort required. Even if only a small number of lists is covered, that's a positive step.
Another potential downside is how big the additional blurb would be for e.g. Romans!
I spent a bit of time a few years back (as part of a campaign I was intending to put together) gathering all of the information I could find about the battles fought between Romans and Goths between the Danube crossing in 376 and Adrianople in 378. Including what is known about the forces involved and the commanders on both sides. That's quite a bit of information just for two years, and a limited geographic area!
Quote from: LawrenceG on December 04, 2023, 11:50:06 PM
Except that if you are going to list battles/campaigns it seems to me that at least the opponent and possibly result could be included with relatively little extra work for significant extra benefit.
I intend to do this. This was an initial test of the water.