Ancient and Mediaeval Battles -What and Why?

[Duncan Head]

I think that's much better, Mark. Thanks!

[Erpingham]

Some real topic archaeology/necromancy here - the first post since the early days of the forum.

We have operated quite a strict system on the use of this topic for the last decade.  Largely, it has worked.  Some stuff has to be moved because it's about secondary discussion of the battle but mostly OK.  However, it is rare that anyone (until very recently) delivers the sort of thing Roy originally specified.  The observant will note a certain loosening of the format criteria.  I have concluded I have some leeway on this from the last line in Roy's original post. If the post is based on a discussion of the original sources for a battle and either quotes from them or links to them, it will stay here.  If not, it will be relocated.

Recent discussions of Second Mantinaea initiated by Justin have also introduced a much greater use of maps and satellite photos.  Originally, maps had to be put in their own separate daughter board and cross referred.  Rather clumsy and very few people did it.  These days, with our greater familiarity with SMF and easier tools, we can insert stuff into posts straightforwardly.  While continuing with the trend, I'd expect these maps etc. to form supporting materials for text-based studies, not items in themselves (you can still use the Battleplan boards for discussing plans and maps in their own right).

I hope that this easing allows more members to bring forward source-based descriptions and commentaries in a freer format while staying true to Roy's original vision.

Final point - the simple title format was, as you can read, introduced for ease of referal.  Please try to be clear in the title which battle your post is about.  Thanks.

[Imperial Dave]

Nosferatu sure about this.....

 

[Erpingham]

I've been concerned for a while about quite a serious drift away from even the simplified principles of this section (see post #16), let alone the founding principles. I shall try and do a few obvious moves of material that doesn't relate to an actual battle into the history section. What to do about the others will need a bit more consideration.  I feel that we may allow items directly related to battlefield archaeology and battlefield location - these seem to be in the realms of discussing evidence.  Apologies if anyone feels this is too lose - I'll move them if there is an outcry.

But the general thing is this section is not generally where you post about non-source-focussed material on battles,  especially hack or AI pieces, however interesting. They go in the general history section. Also, remember to be clear on the identity of the battle. We can perhaps loosen the strict date ID criteria if the date is obvious from the identification.  But something more obscure to the general readership, put it in to help readers spot new things in their areas of interest.