Time Commanders

[Ziu]

Yes, I watched it while I did my ironing (The joys of living alone).

To be honest it was difficult to see how they could have held off those Romans within the limitations of the RTW battle engine. Its alright for Nusbacher to talk about forming a box but trying to give ground slowly in RTW is almost impossible.

I think it is impossible. RTW units seems to miraculously be able to hold ground whilst losing. That is, of course, until they rout.

It was not unusual in ancient times for engaged armies/units to cede long distances of ground whilst still staying in combat. 90 odd percent of casualties came when units turned and bolted. So ceding ground was a much better alternative.

I don't see how with the RTW engine one could really make a fair go of Cannae.

[Barbarossa82]

Whoa, OK, let me respond to these in turn.

Kraxis, your misunderstanding is, as you say "rather simple". If I was in China, trying to communicate with a Chinese person, then I would either a) make the effort to at least learn some Chinese phrases, or b) use the place name that they themselves use. There is a difference between foreign names pronounced in their own native language, and the forms we use when importing that name into our own. Would you prefer that I always referred to Germany as Deutschland, and to India as Bharat? Do you always say "Yoolius Kaesar" when you are talking about Julius Caesar, and "Yeshua" when you mention Jesus? I would assume not.

GFX707 - There is still ongoing (and very interesting) research into the background of the various national groupings which populate the British isles. More recent DNA analyses show that the Scots have a lot of genetic common ground with Scandinavian peoples. While this is far from conclusive, it surely does constitute a degree of evidence to suggest that their descent is more Nordic than Celtic. Needless to say, no ethnic group is "pure" or "apart", we have all interbred to a significant degree, so of course the Irish and Pictish influences you mention will be there.

Didz, first of all regarding the heterogeneity of the Celts. Like most ethnic groups, the Celts had a significant range of subdivisions and subordinate identities. Some, such as the historian Simon James, have suggested that the differences were so substantial as to destroy the term "Celt" as an ethnographic concept. However, in the context of the British Isles, the Celtic population was overwhelmingly made up of Gaels, who had invaded and displaced the (also Celtic) Brythonic people some time between 500 and 100 BC. Therefore although it is true to say that the Celts were not a single unified ethnic bloc in a wider European context, on the Island of Great Britain they were a relatively homogenous Gaelic grouping.
It is not my logic that British is synonymous with celtic. I appreciate that there are two principal definitions of British. The first, and more familiar, is a political definition, and applies to anyone who holds a British passport. It is possible to trace this political use of the word "British" to the reign of James II, when it was consciously and deliberately adopted as an artificial, unifying adjective to encompass the whole of his ethnically diverse realm.
If you have studied any ethnography, you will see that the term also crops up there, as a grouping of peoples. The Celts did not constitute the entirety of this ethnic group, but were by far its largest component.
Therefore the English, seemingly most of the Scots, and those of later immigrant backgrounds, are very much British in a political sense but not in the sense in which the term is used in the study of Ethnography.
On a lighter note, it might be worth bearing in mind that it was John Prescott who gave us the pearl of wisdom: "The Green Belt is a great achievement, and now we must build on it." :)

[melvinio]

Yes, erm, Time Commanders

Did anyone see the Battle of Chanon (or was it Chalon)?

I know sweet FA about the Huns, but even i could figure out you dont use horse archers as statues.

[Didz]

Yes, erm, Time Commanders

Did anyone see the Battle of Chanon (or was it Chalon)?

I know sweet FA about the Huns, but even i could figure out you dont use horse archers as statues.

That was the episode that inspired me to start this thread. It was so embarrassing it set my teeth on edge.

[Arrowhead]

Can everyone stop talking about grammar?

[Didz]

Can everyone stop talking about grammar?

I hate to mention this but I'm not sure the use of a question mark at the end of that sentence is correct.

If the sentence was intended to be a question, (e.g. is it possible for everyone to stop talking about grammar) then the question mark is appropriate.

However, I suspect that in fact your statement was intended to be read as a request, proposal or instruction.

e.g. Would everyone please stop talking about grammar,
or, I suggest that everyone stops talking about grammar,
or, Stop talking about grammar, Now.

In which case the question mark is inappropriate.

[CrackedAxe]

By far the best TC, imo, was the Battle of Gaugamela. The team did incredibly well, given the task they were set. Or were they just lucky? The team was pretty animated and argumentative as well, which made for more entertainment.

Btw, Boadicea IS a roman spelling mistake and NOT a so called 'latinisation'. How could they latinise a word that was not native to their language without translating it, therefore converting it to a different word or phrase altogether. I mean, how do I 'anglicise', for example, Moa Tse Tung; Moth Eaten Tongue? Or Mahatma Ghandi; Ma hat ma coat?

[Barbarossa82]

Btw, Boadicea IS a roman spelling mistake and NOT a so called 'latinisation'. How could they latinise a word that was not native to their language without translating it, therefore converting it to a different word or phrase altogether. I mean, how do I 'anglicise', for example, Moa Tse Tung; Moth Eaten Tongue? Or Mahatma Ghandi; Ma hat ma coat?

You are already doing it!!! Although your spelling is rather unconventional, you are anglicising Mao's name as an inevitable concomitant of transliterating it. Is "Germany" a spelling mistake for "Deutschland"? Because by your logic it surely must be. Hard to see how one could get so many letters wrong though.

Boadicea for Boudicca doesn't have to be deliberate in order to be a latinisation rather than a spelling mistake. People naturally modify the sounds of foreign names and words when they import them into their own language. You are doing it yourself when you write "Moa Tse Tung", since this will never correspond adequately to Chinese, especially since it is a tonal language.

You also confuse latinisation/anglicisation with translation. Translation means converting the MEANING into your own language, latinisation/anglicisation means modifying the SOUNDS of the word so that it more accurately reflects your own language's structure and natural sound range. "Londres" is not a French translation of "London", it is a Gallicisation which makes it easier and more confortable for them to say, and as far as I'm concerned they're perfectly entitled to do it.

I bet you don't go around talking about Italia, Hellas and Magyarország when you want to refer to Italy, Greece and Hungary!

[Didz]

I think the most common example I come across are Spanish names when studying the perninsula war.

The two that always catch me out are 'Ciudad Rodrigo' which as far as I can verbalise it sounds like "Fray-dad-Rodrigo".

And 'Badajoz' which contrary to the spelling gets pronounced something like 'Bad-a-Hof.'

I have no idea how the Spanish spell the names of these cities but the spelling we use doesn't reflect the phonetic's needed to vocalise their names.

I suspect if the Romans had trouble pronouncing Boudicca they probably wrote out the letters that corresponded to what they heard. It would be a bit like me writing Fraydadrodrigo instead of Ciudad Rodrigo.

[Kraxis]

And 'Badajoz' which contrary to the spelling gets pronounced something like 'Bad-a-Hof.'

Hmm... I always though it was pronounced Bada-hros.

[CrackedAxe]

You are already doing it!!! Although your spelling is rather unconventional, you are anglicising Mao's name as an inevitable concomitant of transliterating it. Is "Germany" a spelling mistake for "Deutschland"? Because by your logic it surely must be. Hard to see how one could get so many letters wrong though.

Boadicea for Boudicca doesn't have to be deliberate in order to be a latinisation rather than a spelling mistake. People naturally modify the sounds of foreign names and words when they import them into their own language. You are doing it yourself when you write "Moa Tse Tung", since this will never correspond adequately to Chinese, especially since it is a tonal language.

You also confuse latinisation/anglicisation with translation. Translation means converting the MEANING into your own language, latinisation/anglicisation means modifying the SOUNDS of the word so that it more accurately reflects your own language's structure and natural sound range. "Londres" is not a French translation of "London", it is a Gallicisation which makes it easier and more confortable for them to say, and as far as I'm concerned they're perfectly entitled to do it.

I bet you don't go around talking about Italia, Hellas and Magyarország when you want to refer to Italy, Greece and Hungary!

So, by your reasoning, I could correctly use the japanese rendering of our prime ministers name, TAWNY BRAIR!

Cool. This would be ok would it? By your use of Boadicea, you're saying its ok (or are you ancient roman? my you're looking good for your age). Its Boudicca, BOO-DICK-A!

[Fridge]

So, by your reasoning, I could correctly use the japanese rendering of our prime ministers name, TAWNY BRAIR!

If you were Japanese, I'd have thought the only way you would be able to render it phonetically would be in Japanese script (and even then it wouldn't match exactly the sounds of Englis. The whole problem is the Japanese can't (or find it difficult without training) to reproduce some phonetic elements of the English language, and, I imagine vice versa.

Cool. This would be ok would it? By your use of Boadicea, you're saying its ok (or are you ancient roman? my you're looking good for your age). Its Boudicca, BOO-DICK-A!

I doubt he's ancient Roman, but he is, after all, using a language directly descended from theirs. And, having given us the ancient spelling of Boudicca, you're very confident of how it's pronounced, bearing in mind the original was wrtitten in a language with (AFAIK) no, or effectively no, relation to modern English.

So either Boudicca is the original spelling and it's not pronounced BOO-DICK-AH, or Boudicca is a phonetic rendering and the original spelling was very different, or it's both spelt and pronounced that way and it's all a coincidence of astounding proportions.

Did the Britons (or Iceni) even use a latin alphabet in those days? Or was Boudicca just an attempt to transcribe the name in the latin alphabet before the Romans came along and did their latinizing?

[Barbarossa82]

So, by your reasoning, I could correctly use the japanese rendering of our prime ministers name, TAWNY BRAIR!

Cool. This would be ok would it? By your use of Boadicea, you're saying its ok (or are you ancient roman? my you're looking good for your age). Its Boudicca, BOO-DICK-A!

Yes, well understood. It would be absolutely OK, especially if you're Japanese, and even if you're not. If it makes it easier for you to say in your own native language, go for it.
It's Boudicca in Gaelic, Boadicea in Latin, to me Boadicea sounds more natural and easily flowing in modern English, so that's what I'm gonna say. If you want to say Tawny Brair, fire away.

Must go now, my 2000-year-old Italian bones are feeling the cold!