Dear Group
I have in recent past, before this blog, set up a timeline to follow for my own campaigns. When this all started I dismissed it for the joy of the game, so to speak, but would seriously like to put this in perspective for my own gaming as it adds quite a bit. This is so especially since I solo game this.
I have seen both 1755 and 1756 spoken of as past times in this blog, I think that this correct. That would indicate this is 1757? If this is so than Bob the XXII is in the right place in Europa, if not than I have made a major blunder and need to correct this by withdrawing Bob, but not his ambassadors.
Can we have a concensus on the year?
Thanks
Richard
14 hours ago
7 comments:
What Year Is It?
--------------
I can only offer these two items which solely govern Der Alte and I naturally.
-------------------
#1 As we write, speak and breathe, we are in the earliest moments of the 250th commemoration of the Seven Years' War. Add 250 years to 1756-1763 and we get 2006-2013. We are now in the year 1757 or 2007, so to speak. If we broaden this a bit back in time to 1755 when France and England were actually involved in open if undeclared war, then we have 1755 or 2005 added in. Seems like a nice segway to the question at hand.
---------------
#2 Der Alte's (Hesse-Sewald with Britannia and Prussia) has been at war with my Gallia plus Saxe-Raschstein, The Imperium and Russi since 1755/2005. Hence when we write though once in a while we forget the year, we are now in 1757 or 2007.
--------------------
Need this govern anyone else? No. However, it might make things more convenient, if one wants this.
-----------
Cheers,
Bill
When Murdock and I first talked about the idea of this group blog, we were fairly loose about it.
As far as I'm concerned, we can all still be fairly loose about the year and such.
But I did think that the "Gallia/Hesse-Seewald" conflict would make a good general "hook" for the blog.
For one thing, I know that they had previously invited a number of our bloggers to join them in their next "big game" . . . so it seems to me to be natural to "hook onto" their timeline.
So, let's make it 1757 for those who need to be concerned . . . I personally will be blissfully unconcerned about it since our local "Wars for Arcadian Glory" campaign will run independent of the group blog timeline.
-- Jeff
That sounds acceptable to me as well.
I concur.
As I am mostly doing my part solo the timeline is less important, I'm happy to go along with the general consensus.
Current time in Wittenberg is some time in the 1750's, but I'm happy with relative times.
I consulted Brother James of Wittendorf who thinks that due to the fact that a variety of calendars are in use in the various countries - over the years they have ended up in disagreement over the year and date; this being due to due to lax calendrical corrections.
Allan (Wittenberg)
Hi Richard,
there was a difference of 11 days, I believe, between the english and franco-spanish versons of the very same calendar (with disturbing consequences for the historian, specially when the naval part of an expedition was recorded using the english calendar, and the corresponding land events with the french one- e.g. french reports of the english landings).
The Russians use their own calendar (the october revolution took place in novemeber), and we are still within calendards based on the very same religion.
No surprise that, when it comes to establish their exact correspondance with the calendar of a Moon-Goddess whorshipping culture, some hesitation is initially felt...
Jean-Louis
(Apprentice-archivist & -specialized encyclopedist,
who would like to learn so much more about Bob the XXII's fascinating country)
I agree with Jeff on this one. As the sharp-eyed will note, there is an inconsistency of having Sheik Yerboudi as my- ahem, Albrecht's Vizier on the EvsE blog, while the War of the Slobbovian Annexation is still raging over on mine. Like Jeff, that civil strife will actually have occurred and concluded a year or three before the blog's timeline.
Post a Comment