Pet History Peeves

[Ajidica]

I blame Basileios II for the charlie-fox that was the eleventh century, though, so yeah.

Any reason for that besides his inability to clearly designate an heir, so instead we got the ageing Zoe and her revolving door of boy toys?

 

[Dachs]

Any reason for that besides his inability to clearly designate an heir, so instead we got the ageing Zoe and her revolving door of boy toys?

What other reason do you need?

 

[Lord Baal]

As much as I like Justinian, I have to side with Basil II for what he (allegedly) said upon the destruction on a monastery that opposed him "I have turned their refectory into a reflectory, because all they can do now is reflect on how to feed themselves".

You know, I very nearly said Basil II as a joke.

You could make the case, sure. I would make the case. But a lot of people would disagree. I just don't see how Ioustinianos I could be considered such a bad Emperor. Probably Prokopios' fault.

I think Justinian was quite a good emperor. You asked who was better. Eirene was. Though, being female, I guess she was an empress, so you are technically correct. The best kind of correct.

 

[W|M]

The original point being made wasn't that Justinian was a bad emperor, but that he's a very overrated emperor and a lot of people who think they know a lot about Byzantine history only actually know a bit about him.

 

[Lord Baal]

The original point being made wasn't that Justinian was a bad emperor, but that he's a very overrated emperor and a lot of people who think they know a lot about Byzantine history only actually know a bit about him.

Almost every famous personality is either vastly overrated or vastly underrated. If you accomplish important things, people either love you for it or vilify you for it.

 

[Dachs]

I think Justinian was quite a good emperor. You asked who was better. Eirene was. Though, being female, I guess she was an empress, so you are technically correct. The best kind of correct.

My original question was designed to show that WIM was being silly for whining about that, because it's not as though people who say that Ioustinianos was the greatest Emperor are obviously wrong. That would only be true if he were a bad Emperor, or if there were scads of blatantly superior Emperors, neither of which is the case.

The original point being made wasn't that Justinian was a bad emperor, but that he's a very overrated emperor and a lot of people who think they know a lot about Byzantine history only actually know a bit about him.

Overrated by whom, and in what way?

It's still not "out there" to say that Ioustinianos I was the greatest of the Byzantine Emperors. There are a lot of points in favor of somebody wanting to make that argument. To elevate that to being a specific historical pet peeve of yours seems unnecessarily nitpicky.

 

[Arakhor]

My biggest, toe-curlingly awful pet peeve is when ignorant people try to use geographical titles as part of one's name. The most high-profile example of this idiocy is the recent three-part DLC for Assassin's Creed 3 - The Tyranny of King Washington - because, you know, the States had just revolted from the tyranny of King von Hanover, right?

Spoiler :

(I have Asperger's and I have a lot of pet peeves. This is just one of the very largest that I commonly experience.)

 

[Ajidica]

Could you elaborate?
(For the record, my pet peeve in AC3 were the soldiers on patrol in the city wearing campaign packs with bedrolls.)

 

[Flying Pig]

I presume 'King Washington' in that title is a reference to George Washington, and I'd justify it on the ground that 'King George' is unclear, but 'King Washington' sends a totally unmistakeable message.

 

[Arakhor]

The place where I come across most often is the Birthright setting for AD&D 2nd Edition allowed the players to run various realms, all run by your standard mediaeval pseudo-European nobility, which doesn't stop American players referring to characters like Gavin Tael, Baron of Ghoere, as simply 'Baron Tael', or Darien Avan, Prince of Avanil, as 'Prince Avan', in just the same fashion as the AC3 DLC. It's really infuriating and is just as stupid as referring to Emperor Komnenos, King Tudor or Queen Windsor.

 

[Flying Pig]

Not always: Harry Wales is the Prince of Wales, and many lordships are also surnames - for example, Simon Fraser, Lord Fraser (or Lord Lovat). Certainly, Baronness Warsi, so that's correct, although princes are normally named by their given names because the Royal Family doesn't actually have a surname. 'Windsor' is a recent adoption to give minor royals the convenience; HRH the Duke of Edinburgh signs everything 'Philip', for example.

'Darien Avan' actually sounds East Asian, in which case 'Darien' would be the surname, and so 'Prince Avan' totally correct.

 

[Arakhor]

I know not always, but the people who make those stupid mistakes aren't thinking (or even aware) of such modern affectations and frequently claim to be interested in history.

 

[Lord Baal]

The Galactic Empire used the dynastic name as the reigning monarch's name. It was Emperor Palpatine, not Emperor Cos. Also, Emperor Fel, not Jagged. Maybe these peeps are just big Star Wars fans?

 

[Dachs]

Palpatine's father's name was Cos(inga). It's not clear what his original first name was, although since he stopped using it as a teenager it's kind of irrelevant.

 

[Arakhor]

The Galactic Empire used the dynastic name as the reigning monarch's name. It was Emperor Palpatine, not Emperor Cos. Also, Emperor Fel, not Jagged. Maybe these peeps are just big Star Wars fans?

I take the view that the comics were written by Americans, especially as Star Wars is not renowned for anything than being a (good?) story, so the ignorance excuse applies anyway.

 

[Plotinus]

Surely naming conventions in fantasy worlds can be whatever they want.

Bishops also use places as names. Thus, should you ever receive a letter from Justin Welby, it will be signed "+ Justin Cantuar".

 

[Lord Baal]

Palpatine's father's name was Cos(inga). It's not clear what his original first name was, although since he stopped using it as a teenager it's kind of irrelevant.

I didn't realize the EU had actually established Palpatine's parentage. I am aware that Palpatine's first name has never been established in canon, but it was "Cos" in the original Star Wars script, so I don't see any reason to change it.

 

[Dachs]

Yeah, but in the original Star Wars script, the Emperor's name wasn't Cos Palpatine, it was Cos Dahorsehocky, and he was absolutely nothing like the actual Emperor we finally ended up getting in Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi. That's like insisting on referring to Coruscant as "Had Abbadon".

 

[Lord Baal]

Yeah, but in the original Star Wars script, the Emperor's name wasn't Cos Palpatine, it was Cos Dahorsehocky, and he was absolutely nothing like the actual Emperor we finally ended up getting in Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi. That's like insisting on referring to Coruscant as "Had Abbadon".

Shut up! Deak Starkiller is the Chosen One!

 

[Arakhor]

Surely naming conventions in fantasy worlds can be whatever they want.

Well, of course they can, but the writers of the setting acknowledged that they had just pulled together a mediaeval fantasy soup and used that as their basis. It's why the dozen or so great houses that have existed for 1500 years with the same dynastic names intact are referred to modern US fashion - Darien Avan, Prince Avan or even Prince Darien Avan (shudder), rather than Darien, Prince of Avanil.

There is one line in their setting book which says that noble titles shouldn't be used simply as an extra name, but the writers largely ignore it, which is still irritating, but they did admit to simply not doing the research and later books were much better. It also features the same centuries-old families without a single ruler sporting either a byname or a regnal numeral, because of course in 1500 years not one family has ever repeated any name for their generations of offspring.

As Plotinus says though, most of that can be excused (because it's a poorly-researched fantasy setting), but the really infuriating thing about the whole affair is that the setting attracts both history buffs and those who are (to put it politely) very sure of themselves, so when the two collide, you get highly-opinionated people with a slight knowledge of whatever they're warbling on about anjd then still making the same stupid mistakes (Prince Darien Avan, Archduke Aeric Boeruine etc.) whilst they're busy ranting about how feudalism did this or droit de seigneur did that or how mediaeval monarchs were sovereign autocrats with no checks on their power etc. Raaarrrgghhh!!