Gallipoli in Heroes of Battle

[Dirigible]

I agree with Col. Hardisson. It's a fair statement, when you consider that it's Americans talking to Americans.

Not that it doesn't show WotC could use a few more writers trained in history/anthropology to try and identify and excise (or at least state) their biases, mind

 

[trancejeremy]

That is a weird statement, I think, because there is a fairly famous, critically acclaimed movie starring Mel Gibson about it. I would think most people would have heard about it via that movie, which does get played on cable a decent amount of times (since it has Mel Gibson in it). It's probably the most famous battle of WW1, the only one I can name, and I imagine that same would be true for other Americans. (The only other WW1 movie I can think of is Sgt York, and that was just about a guy)

 

[Lorehead]

Considering that several nations commemorate ANZAC Day, Gallipoli seems like a spectacularly bad example.

I don't own the book and haven't read that passage in its full context. Could the authors have been trying to express, however clumsily, that the fame of a battle depends in part on time and distance? In a D&D world, an older dwarf could very well start talking about his memories of some terrible defeat on another continent ninety years ago. Would most humans have heard of it?

 

[demiurge1138]

Pea Ridge, Fallen Timbers - never heard of them, I guess they are battles from the Rebellion of the 13 States or the War between the States

Pea Ridge was indeed a battle fought in the American Civil War. And the Battle of Fallen Timbers was after the USA's independence, fought against the Native Americans for control of the Northwest Territories.

Oh, and I always wondered what the Revolutionary War was called in England. Cool!

Demiurge out.

 

[DanMcS]

Except it is in the context of "Recognition Points" for participating in a single major battle. And lumping an entire theatre of war, and at that one of the two major theaters of war of the entire struggle into the same context as a single battle of the Civil War?!? Do you have no sense of proportion or history?!?

The text is supposed to give some kind of "baseline" for the award of recognition points in a game, and yet by its very ignorance manages to somehow completely muddy the waters of what is really not too difficult. The author should have kept his examples to those of the American Civil War, rather than divulge his ignorance of what other people regard as important in events that have occured beyond the borders of the US.

No, you're just wrong. It's not comparing Gallipoli to Gettysburg, or even the western front to Gettysburg. It's comparing Gettysburg to Pea Ridge, and WWI trench warfare to Gallipoli. It's entirely about proportion and history. In the sphere of the American Civil War, Gettysburg is vastly more recognizable than Pea Ridge (which I would have to look up to know anything about, and a fair amount of my high school education referenced the Civil War). Americans were the ones involved in that war, and among them, Gettysburg would stand out.

In the history of WWI, the western front is vastly more recognizable than Gallipoli. More than just Australians and New Zealanders were involved in WWI, so among all the nations involved in WWI, Gallipoli would not be as recognizable.

You're making a mountain out of a molehill. No one is denigrated by that passage. It's a comparative example.

 

[Starman]

Isn't this a pretty small thing to get worked up over? It's a small part of role-playing book. And it's not like the author said something like "the Australians contributed nothing to WWI."

Go get a beer. Sip on it. Relax.

 

[green slime]

The majority (and I don't doubt it could be a vast majority) of RPG buyers are American. When WotC makes a statement about something that is generally recognizable, it can be assumed that they're speaking to an American audience, because that's who they need to market to. It's not intended to be a slight, nor does it strike me as ignorance. It strikes me as being well aware of one's audience.

No, it would have been more understandable if he'd just stuck with examples from American history, were he managed to get the battles relative importance/recognition rather accurately, rather than blithely putting his foot in his mouth by trying to extend his analogy beyond his understanding.

The whole point is that these battles are meant to be recognizeable within their own context, participating cultures and time frame, otherwise the whole concept of "recognition points" as presented in Heroes of Battle becomes utterly pointless. In the context of the broader historical perspective, even the importance/recognition of battles such as D-Day fade on the grand scale of millenia.

 

[Hairfoot]

But Gallipoli was a slaughter. Churchill just wanted a slice of the action before the war ended, so he sent the ANZACs on a suicide mission. He kindly let the Turks know he was coming by bombarding their bombardment-proofed position days beforehand, then sent the inexperienced colonial boys up the beach to die.

It wasn't a glorious battle.

 

[Firebird]

The Canuck wades in

That is a weird statement, I think, because there is a fairly famous, critically acclaimed movie starring Mel Gibson about it. I would think most people would have heard about it via that movie, which does get played on cable a decent amount of times (since it has Mel Gibson in it). It's probably the most famous battle of WW1, the only one I can name, and I imagine that same would be true for other Americans. (The only other WW1 movie I can think of is Sgt York, and that was just about a guy)

I wouldn't exactly call that movie fairly famous. Pretty obscure actually next to other war movies like All Quiet on the Western Front, Platoon, The Longest Day, or even Saving Private Ryan. That said, it was a good movie and I enjoyed it. It was no Braveheart, but good nonetheless.
I would never go so far as saying that it's the most famous battle of WW1. To us Canadians, it's all about Vimy Ridge. The Battle of the Somme also comes up a lot. It's all perspective. If it was your boys fighting in the battle, that battle takes on more meaning in your eyes than it is perhaps truly "worth". I'm sure most countries have their swansong moment of national pride.
One could blame each nations educational system for trumpeting patriotic themes over historical truth but that sort of thing will never change, IMNSHO.

 

[green slime]

No, you're just wrong. It's not comparing Gallipoli to Gettysburg, or even the western front to Gettysburg. It's comparing Gettysburg to Pea Ridge, and WWI trench warfare to Gallipoli. It's entirely about proportion and history. In the sphere of the American Civil War, Gettysburg is vastly more recognizable than Pea Ridge (which I would have to look up to know anything about, and a fair amount of my high school education referenced the Civil War). Americans were the ones involved in that war, and among them, Gettysburg would stand out.

In the history of WWI, the western front is vastly more recognizable than Gallipoli. More than just Australians and New Zealanders were involved in WWI, so among all the nations involved in WWI, Gallipoli would not be as recognizable.

You're making a mountain out of a molehill. No one is denigrated by that passage. It's a comparative example.

No, you are "just wrong".

Your understanding in no way reflects that of a person living in England, France, Germany, Turkey, New Zealand, Austria, Australia, Italy, or Russia in 1916. No one from Germany, France or England would have said they participated in trench warfare on the western front; they would have fought in the Battle of Ypres, the Battle of Verdun, the Somme Offensive, which were widely reported about in newspapers at home. Its entirely about proportion and history, which the author was completely lacking, when it came to his references beyond the American.

It is only your distance to the historical events in question, which allow you to lump all the battles on the western front during WWI together, and state that as whole, they are more recognizable than a certain specific single event. A statement, which, while obviously true, completely ignores the fact that at the time it occured, this single event was well covered by newspapers in Germany, England, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, precisely because it was of interest to those at home. In other words, it was recognizeable to the people of those cultures, at that time, and for some time thereafter, as evidenced by its commemoration already in 1916, in Australia, New Zealand, and England.

How many other battles have actually been commemorated during wartime? That in and of itself should provide some understanding as to how "recognizeable" the event was to the people of that time.