| Considering all of this week's latest additions, please rate the quality of our efforts. |
| Excellent |
|
59% |
[ 38 ] |
| Very Good |
|
34% |
[ 22 ] |
| Good |
|
3% |
[ 2 ] |
| Fair |
|
3% |
[ 2 ] |
| Poor |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 64 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Nathan Robinson
myArmoury Admin
|
|
    |
 |
Daniel Staberg
|
 Posted: Mon 27 Nov, 2006 1:37 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Some very fine additions, I like the way the articles and reviews are closely connected subjects creating a single theme.
Howver I was a bit dismayed by the battle of Agincourt article, while a well written piece it includes none of the new research published in recent years which challenges and debunks many of the 'facts' presented in the 'traditional' version of the battle. That said the article is an excellent introduction to the 'traditional' view of the battle.
Last edited by Daniel Staberg on Mon 27 Nov, 2006 4:21 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
Nathan Robinson
myArmoury Admin
|
| Posted: Mon 27 Nov, 2006 2:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Daniel Staberg wrote: | Some very fine additions, I like the way the articles and reviews are closely connected subjects creating a single theme.
Howver I was a bit dismayed by the battle of Agincourt article, while a well written piece it includes none of the new research published in recent years which challenges and debunks many of the 'facts' presented in the 'traditional' version of the battle. That said the artile is an excellent introduction to the 'traditional' view of the battle. |
Thank you, Daniel. This is a well-received point and one we discussed briefly a bit internally.
Generally speaking, it's not within our stated mission to do original research, as we simply do not have the resources to do so. Rather, our site attempts to collect, combine, and summarize existing research into manageable chunks appropriate for Web delivery to an audience comprised primarily of enthusiasts/hobbyists. Cutting-edge research is a often difficult to include in this mission, as it's often not widely available, tested, or accepted. As such, there will be many times that it won't make it into our content until it has grown some "legs" of its own, so to speak. This has been true on many of the subjects we've published and is simply a reflection of our limited scope and ability.
I humbly request that you, at the very least, start a topic in our off-topic forum and put forth a summary of the new research. Historical information on battles is only of a secondary (casual) interest to me, personally, so I'm the perfect audience for our shortened "digested" articles on these subjects. Likewise, I'd be a good audience for a topic describing the new research. I suspect I'm not very different than many in our community. There is simply too many subjects of interest for many of us to attack with passion. 
Going beyond that, I invite you to work with us on a follow-up article about the battle should you wish to do so. I'm excited to get all this stuff out there and am constantly on the look-out for new avenues of content generation. Should this interest you, please contact me directly to discuss it.
I look forward to knowing more.
Cheers!
.:. Visit my Collection Gallery :: View my Reading List :: View my Wish List :: See Pages I Like :: Find me on Facebook .:.
|
|
|
|
|
Jonathan Blair
|
| Posted: Mon 27 Nov, 2006 4:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Nathan Robinson wrote: | | Daniel Staberg wrote: | | Howver I was a bit dismayed by the battle of Agincourt article, while a well written piece it includes none of the new research published in recent years which challenges and debunks many of the 'facts' presented in the 'traditional' version of the battle. That said the artile is an excellent introduction to the 'traditional' view of the battle. |
Generally speaking, it's not within our stated mission to do original research, as we simply do not have the resources to do so. Rather, our site attempts to collect, combine, and summarize existing research into manageable chunks appropriate for Web delivery to an audience comprised primarily of enthusiasts/hobbyists. Cutting-edge research is a often difficult to include in this mission, as it's often not widely available, tested, or accepted. As such, there will be many times that it won't make it into our content until it has grown some "legs" of its own, so to speak. This has been true on many of the subjects we've published and is simply a reflection of our limited scope and ability.
I humbly request that you, at the very least, start a topic in our off-topic forum and put forth a summary of the new research. Historical information on battles is only of a secondary (casual) interest to me, personally, so I'm the perfect audience for our shortened "digested" articles on these subjects. Likewise, I'd be a good audience for a topic describing the new research. I suspect I'm not very different than many in our community. There is simply too many subjects of interest for many of us to attack with passion.
Going beyond that, I invite you to work with us on a follow-up article about the battle should you wish to do so. I'm excited to get all this stuff out there and am constantly on the look-out for new avenues of content generation. Should this interest you, please contact me directly to discuss it. |
As the author of the article, I feel the need to chime in here. While I was writing this piece, I did find a mention of new research conducted in the recent past which challenged the traditional view of the battle. I opted not to pursue this simply because that was all I could find at the time: a mention of new research. Small town libraries being what they are, I was surprised and fortunate to find more than one reference to the battle of Agincourt to begin with. I'm sure that with digging and sending off for intra-library loaned books on the subject that I could have found more, but in order to meet a short deadline for submission, I had to stick to what I had, which supported the traditional view. I would love the opportunity to delve more deeply in the new research, and any input you or anyone else can provide on the subject would not only be appreciated, but greatly enjoyed. I regret that you found the article less than satisfying, and I apologize for failing to cover the new research. I also want to echo Nathan and encourage you to work with the team here and write a followup article on the battle.
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." - The Lord Jesus Christ, from The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, chapter x, verse 34, Authorized Version of 1611
|
|
|
|
|
Alexander Hinman
|
| Posted: Mon 27 Nov, 2006 8:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
This weeks updates are great. However, while I love the Hundred Years' War, I'm rather glad that it's basically wrapped up. I was getting somewhat tired of the lack of variation in the subjects of the articles. Of course, this is probably just me, because it seems every medieval military history book I own makes a reference to the HYW.
I'd rather see something like 'Great Battles: Rio Salado' and 'Man of War: Alfonso XI' between the Poitiers and Crecy articles, for example.
Well, there's a project for me! Of course, sword makers would have to start patterning swords after 14th century Spanish examples first, but I can wait.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Colin F.
|
| Posted: Mon 27 Nov, 2006 10:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
My first history book was a small Penguin book on the life of Henry V and i've always had an interest in his life and achievements. Not to mention that me current hand and a half is also based on a piece from this time period so even more interest for me with the Agincourt blade. Thanks for this!!!
Melchett - "In short, a German spy is giving away every one of our battle plans."
Cpt. Darling - "You look surprised, Blackadder."
Edmund - "I cerainly am, sir. I didn't realise we had any battle plans."
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Mon 27 Nov, 2006 8:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Alexander Hinman wrote: | This weeks updates are great. However, while I love the Hundred Years' War, I'm rather glad that it's basically wrapped up. I was getting somewhat tired of the lack of variation in the subjects of the articles. Of course, this is probably just me, because it seems every medieval military history book I own makes a reference to the HYW.
I'd rather see something like 'Great Battles: Rio Salado' and 'Man of War: Alfonso XI' between the Poitiers and Crecy articles, for example.
Well, there's a project for me! Of course, sword makers would have to start patterning swords after 14th century Spanish examples first, but I can wait. |
If there is a bias towards any particular time period or locale, it's simpy because that's what our authors are interested in writing about. We are all volunteer authors and we write about what piques our interest. There are plenty of other battles and people being covered in forthcoming installments of both series, though.
I personally don't care for comments about a "lack of variation." After all, we're volunteers spending our free time for free, and trying simply to add to the collective knowledge through our volunteering. The hundreds of pages of content on this site are the work of around 50 authors. To have as much variety as we have is admirable. If you want the site to have more variety, please consider joining us and helping us add to our content base.
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Fay
|
| Posted: Mon 27 Nov, 2006 8:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hello all!
Thanks again, folks, for the informative articles and reviews! I wondered about the Arms & Armour Henry V sword, even if I'm not considering it at the moment. One can always dream!
I had a thought, and sorry if it's a bit off-topic; could the apparent emphasis on the Hundred Years War be because, well, it occupied the minds of the French, English, and other nearby nations for well over a century (1337 to 1453, I believe)? That's a lot of history to cover, and Henry V's campaigns are actually a bit different from Edward III's. They are related, but occurred in somewhat different time periods (early 15th century for Henry, mid 14th for Edward). The arms and armour did change over time, and the attitudes and tactic's evolved. Charles VII's expulsion of the English by the use of a professional army with a strong artillery arm (thanks to the Bureau brothers, I believe) is different yet again from Edward III's triumph at Crecy, the Black Prince's capture of the king at Poitiers, and Henry V's "miracle" (or was it a massacre waged by a war-mongering tyrant?) at Agincourt. I personally believe that there is plenty of variety just in the broad subject of the "Hundred Years War". There are still plenty of subjects that could be done in the time period of the Hundred Years War. It also helps that this period is well-covered by sources in the English-speaking world. 
I like the idea of replicas of 13th or 14th century Spanish swords; I think the "Sword of Sancho IV of Castille" (number XII. 7 in Oakeshott's Records of the Medieval Sword, the one with the glass heraldic disks inset into the wooden grip) would make a showpiece that would rival Edward III's sword for artistic beauty!
(Of course, I wouldn't be able to afford it, but boy would I drool over it!  )
I hope my aimless ramblings weren't too far off topic!
Stay safe!
"I'm going to do what the warriors of old did! I'm going to recite poetry!"
Prince Andrew of Armar
|
|
|
|
|
Alexander Hinman
|
| Posted: Tue 28 Nov, 2006 5:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Chad Arnow wrote: | | I personally don't care for comments about a "lack of variation." After all, we're volunteers spending our free time for free, and trying simply to add to the collective knowledge through our volunteering. The hundreds of pages of content on this site are the work of around 50 authors. To have as much variety as we have is admirable. If you want the site to have more variety, please consider joining us and helping us add to our content base. |
I didn't mean to come off as rude or ungrateful with my comment about variation, though in retrospect I obviously did. Nor did I mean to detract from the efforts of the writers, which are by all means exceptional. I was simply making the whistful suggestion (ie, in an ideal world) that more variation would be interesting, under the apparently false supposition that sticking to the single theatre of the HYW was an intentional act of formatting, rather than an act of necessity.
I would be happy to write similar articles, and that's what I meant by 'there's a project for me!'
Getting back to the updates, I'm wondering how the Agincourt compares to the Talhoffer in handling, as they're both Albion XVa's. They're both lovely swords, and are visually very different, at least to me.
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Tue 28 Nov, 2006 7:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Very good articles and the battle of Agincourt one gives a clear picture of the " traditional " interpretation.
As to new research or interpretations would be interesting to know, even in a brief form, what is essentially different about this version(s). Still debatable if a new version of anything is actually " truer " than the traditional version: I guess it depends on what it's based on ? New information or new interpretation of old information ?
In any case the article give a point of reference i.e. context to understand any newer information.
The sword reviews articles and articles about history really work well together. 
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
Steve Grisetti
|
| Posted: Tue 28 Nov, 2006 5:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I am another person that appreciates variety in the articles and reviews at myArmoury.com. That said, however, I eagerly tore through each of the articles/reviews in the Nov 27 update. Henry V (both the man and the A&A rendition of his sword) have long fascinated me, so thanks to Chad and Bill for your fine articles. I enjoyed Jonathan's article on Hal's most famous battle, and look forward to seeing any material offered on the 'new research' mentioned by Daniel in his post. Last but not least, thanks to Alexi for his Albion Agincourt review!
"...dismount thy tuck, be yare in thy preparation, for thy assailant is quick, skilful, and deadly."
- Sir Toby Belch
|
|
|
|
|
Nathan Robinson
myArmoury Admin
|
| Posted: Tue 28 Nov, 2006 5:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Please forgive me for patting ourselves on the back here
Personally, I think we've got the variety thing pretty well covered. One need only look at the listing of recent updates to see the diversity of subjects we've attacked since this site started years ago.
As an example, just since August we've covered:
An article about the battle of Agincourt, one about Henry V, reviews for Henry V and Agincourt swords, an Alfred Geibig sword typology article, a review of a Viking shield, a report of the Western Martial Arts Workshop 2006, three different rondel dagger reviews, four different axe reviews, three different fantasy sword reviews, an article about Edward III, a piece about the battle of Crécy and a review of Albion's Crécy sword, two articles about the poleaxe, including an in-depth report on the Medieval Poleaxe, hands-on reviews for a halberd and a hewing spear, two additional pages about axes, three rapier reviews and one for a parrying dagger along with related collection pages, and more....
The list goes on...
But there are always, always going to be subjects we've not been able to pay any attention to. If you guys want something else covered, then please ask for it. I made a separate Suggestions and Requests forum for that purpose. To date, we've hardly had any requests for content. We're often flying blind here. With a lack of direct input, we've gone the route of indirect input. We noticed a few months ago, as an example, a lot of talk on the forums about Rondel Daggers: we attacked that. We noticed a lot of discussion about axes: we attacked that. Much was starting to be discussed about medieval battle, tactics, armour and weapon usage, and historical figures: we released articles relating to the hundred years war as a start on this track. We've taken note of many other subjects on the forums and have dozens of things in the work to attack those themes. We look at the results of the feedback polls, taking note of what received positive input, and have made efforts to write similar articles. I'm proud of the way we respond to these things, but again, nothing beats direct input.
Given the nature of this site and the limited avenues of content generation we have, we certainly can't address every request and can't be expected to have any knowledge or even interest in all subjects, but being armed with the knowledge of what our audience wants is a powerful tool for us.
And I can't help but mention that we're still in search of new authors willing to participate in the myArmoury.com project.
Thank you for allowing me to express my pride in this project and the good folks I've had the pleasure to work with.
.:. Visit my Collection Gallery :: View my Reading List :: View my Wish List :: See Pages I Like :: Find me on Facebook .:.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grayson C.
|
| Posted: Tue 28 Nov, 2006 7:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As always, you get another excllent from me!
You agincourt article was one of the most spot-on pieces I've seen (right up there with "Face of Battle"'s section, in my opinion), and I've been keen on learning about the young king as well.
Of course your weapons reviews are always a jewel to read, and I can't wait for the next one!
You guys are great  !
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Mon 04 Dec, 2006 6:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jean Thibodeau wrote: | Very good articles and the battle of Agincourt one gives a clear picture of the " traditional " interpretation.
As to new research or interpretations would be interesting to know, even in a brief form, what is essentially different about this version(s). Still debatable if a new version of anything is actually " truer " than the traditional version: I guess it depends on what it's based on ? New information or new interpretation of old information ? |
Mostly the latter. For example, we can actually interpret the account in Enguerrand the Monstrelet's chronicles to mean that the English did not wait for the French charge, but instead disordered the French lines (horse and foot alike) with their preliminary showers of arrows before they charged, routing the first battle and throwing it back in confusion into the second battle--which also broke soon afterwards. This seems to be a recurring theme among the newer interpretations, although it hasn't found its way into the "canon" since in any case almost every aspect of the battle itself is being questioned in the recent debate and the new views often disagree more with each other than with A.H. Burne's traditional account. It'd probably take a whole new article just to review this debate, even without taking conclusions on its own.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic
