| Author |
Message |
|
Kelly Powell
Location: lawrence, kansas Joined: 27 Feb 2008
Posts: 123
|
 Posted: Sun 16 Mar, 2008 8:14 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
|
Ok, not EVERYBODY in the sca....but a large enough % try to pair their weight of equipment down to try to get a speed advantage.....As for shields getting their corners cut off...Most likeley. But if it stopped those first few shots, then it did it's job.
|
|
  |
 |
Bill Tsafa
Location: Brooklyn, NY Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 599
|
| Posted: Sun 16 Mar, 2008 9:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kelly Powell wrote: | | Ok, not EVERYBODY in the sca....but a large enough % try to pair their weight of equipment down to try to get a speed advantage.....As for shields getting their corners cut off...Most likeley. But if it stopped those first few shots, then it did it's job. |
I agree that wood shield can take a good deal of punishment. The corners are often the first to go. I have observed this plenty of times in the SCA even with just rattan hitting them. Even on some of the aluminum shields I have seen the corners bend in. The straps also break in charges sometimes. Everything has a limited use and breaks sooner or later.
Ken, the term "prehistoric" has a very specific meaning among history professionals. It specifically means lack of surviving written records from within that culture. The history professors I have listened to draw a sharp line between the records that come withing a certain culture and recorded observations of one culture by another culture. In the case of the recordings by Romans of Celts, the Romans are considered a "hostile source" since the Romans were at war with them at the time of Ceasers conquests. After Ceaser, the Celtic culture was permanently changed.
In the case of the Viking raids, we get most of our 9th and 10th century information from monks who again are considered a "hostile source". Another good example of "hostile sources" of information is the inquisitions and witch trials. Again, we only get the information from one side. By the time Beowulf and the other Viking sagas were written, that culture had changed significantly. The Viking period is divided up into three phases. The first is the raiding and trading phase using hit and run tactics. The second is the invasion phase where we see them holding on to conquered land. Third is the settlement phase where they set up trade shops and becoming merchants. It is in the settlement phase that we see written records from within as they convert to Christianity. Viking settlers at Yourvik are a very different people from the viking raiders and slave traders of the first phase.
We can see a sharp difference in the case of Greeks before and after the Roman conquest of Greece. Had we not had earlier Greek records from within Greece, we would have had to depend on the later Roman recordings. Our understanding of Greece in the 5th century b.c. would have been very different had we only had "hostile sources" of information.
I am not suggesting that we ignore information from outside sources and of later periods, but we must recognize their limits too.
No athlete/youth can fight tenaciously who has never received any blows: he must see his blood flow and hear his teeth crack... then he will be ready for battle.
Roger of Hoveden, 1174-1201
www.poconoshooting.com
www.poconogym.com
Last edited by Bill Tsafa on Sun 16 Mar, 2008 10:24 pm; edited 4 times in total
|
|
  |
|
Stephen Hand
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anders Nilsson
|
| Posted: Mon 17 Mar, 2008 12:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Stephen Hand wrote: | Dear Anders,
You should take a look at my two papers on the surviving evidence for how large shields were used. The papers are in Spada and Spada II respectively. Both volumes of Spada contain about a dozen papers on aspects of historical european martial arts and are published by Chivalry Bookshelf.
Cheers
Stephen |
Sounds great. I will look into that.
|
|
 |
|
Steven H
|
| Posted: Mon 17 Mar, 2008 4:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gavin-
In an earlier post on this thread I linked to some tests of shield survivability. The shield was ruined from a single good hit. I think corners wouldn't last at all on flat shield - at least against cuts. When the shield is for jousting corners makes sense and were used such at on the encranche and heater.
Vassilis-
I think you make too much about having your right foot forward. Marozzo consistently shows the right foot forward for various sizes of shields (see the pictures). I.33 and Lichtenauerian tradition seems to freely switch between which foot is forward. Other masters prefer left leg forward.
So I have no doubt it can work - but you have to practice your style, especially the footwork, to make it work.
For instance my right leg is not in danger if I start left leg forward and cut an oberhau, because my opponent blocks the shot to the head instead of attacking my legs. If he blocks with the shield and cuts at my leg, then I can krump his sword hand or block with my own shield.
I lengthen my attack by stepping with the right and that is a useful tactic in and of itself. (I notice in the vids you linked to that you only show short attacks and not any long attacks).
Cheers,
Steven
 Attachment: 18.45 KB
Marozzo ward with an enarmed rotella
Attachment: 86.81 KB
Marozzo wards with the buckler
Kunstbruder - Boston area Historical Combat Study
|
|
|
|
|
Steven Reich
Location: Arlington, VA Joined: 28 Oct 2003
Posts: 237
|
| Posted: Mon 17 Mar, 2008 5:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steven H wrote: | | I think you make too much about having your right foot forward. Marozzo consistently shows the right foot forward for various sizes of shields (see the pictures). I.33 and Lichtenauerian tradition seems to freely switch between which foot is forward. Other masters prefer left leg forward. |
Actually, if you look at Marozzo's text, you see that when the sword is accompanied by a shield of some type, he prefers the left-foot forward stance. This is a moderate bias in Sword and Rotella or Sword and Imbracciatura. With sword and Brocchiero Largo or Sword and Targa, it is a significant bias. Manciolino shows an even stronger bias towards the left foot forward guards.
Vassilis-
I found a statement of yours very interesting in a previous post:
| Vassilis Tsafatinos wrote: | | ...keep your sword-side foot back and make gathering steps forward... |
Now assuming I understand what you mean by a gathering step: drawing your rear foot up to your front foot, then stepping forward with your front foot. This is exactly the same step the Bolognese masters explicitly tell you to use to come into measure (except for Dall'Agocchie, although he does use that step). The Italians refer to this as un piede cacciare l'altro, that is "one foot chases the other" which I call a chasing step.
Steve
Founder of NoVA-Assalto, an affiliate of the HEMA Alliance
|
|
|
|
|
Elling Polden
|
| Posted: Mon 17 Mar, 2008 5:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What foot is forward depends on what you are doing, and where you are going.
Generally, I prefer left leg forward. It makes the shield defense easier, and gives you a much longer effective striking range.
Gathering steps, or "fencing steps" as we call them, are good for maintaining distance, and manouvering. they are however shorter than the passing steps, and thus limit your range, especially if you have the left foot forward.
Whichever foot is forward, however, you need to piviot into line once the step is made. Later single sword forms, which lead with the sword side, quote this as the reason they are going right foot forward; it requires a much shorter time to piviot back on line.
However, since they are sword forms, they step behind the sword for defence; If armed with a shield, you step behind that instead, and thus are better of with the left foot forward in your guard.
But in an exchange you might find yourself with either foot forward, pivioting behind your shield or sword as is best in the situation.
Quite a lot of effective shield work is forming a solid cover with your sword and shield at all times, and maintaining it as you move.
As for destroying shields, it can surely be done. However, launching full force blows at a shield with a sharp sword might not be a extremly good idea, since it might get stuck.
Also, if you are entering an exchange where you are aiming for his shield and he tries to kill you, the risk is not worth the return.
If having your shield destroyed was a major issue, you would see iron fittings on shield edges, which you as far as I know don't.
"this [fight] looks curious, almost like a game. See, they are looking around them before they fall, to find a dry spot to fall on, or they are falling on their shields. Can you see blood on their cloths and weapons? No. This must be trickery."
-Reidar Sendeman, from King Sverre's Saga, 1201
|
|
|
|
|
Steven Reich
Location: Arlington, VA Joined: 28 Oct 2003
Posts: 237
|
| Posted: Mon 17 Mar, 2008 6:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Elling Polden wrote: | | Gathering steps, or "fencing steps" as we call them, are good for maintaining distance, and manouvering. they are however shorter than the passing steps, and thus limit your range, especially if you have the left foot forward. |
Which type of step are you calling a "fencing step"? One where the forward foot moves first or the rear foot moves first? The one where the forward foot moves first is generally called an advance, the one where the rear foot moves first is called a chasing step by the Italian masters. The first covers less distance than the passing step; the second covers the same distance.
Steve
Founder of NoVA-Assalto, an affiliate of the HEMA Alliance
|
|
|
|
|
Elling Polden
|
| Posted: Mon 17 Mar, 2008 6:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The advance. I occationally use the chasing step as well, though I have not regarded it a a seperate step (since its two motions) but rather a "cheat" for the advance.
On a fun sidenote, it is also used in Kung Fu, in a exagerated form, where the legs actually cross before stepping.
"this [fight] looks curious, almost like a game. See, they are looking around them before they fall, to find a dry spot to fall on, or they are falling on their shields. Can you see blood on their cloths and weapons? No. This must be trickery."
-Reidar Sendeman, from King Sverre's Saga, 1201
|
|
|
|
|
Steven H
|
| Posted: Mon 17 Mar, 2008 7:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steven Reich wrote: |
Actually, if you look at Marozzo's text, you see that when the sword is accompanied by a shield of some type, he prefers the left-foot forward stance. This is a moderate bias in Sword and Rotella or Sword and Imbracciatura. With sword and Brocchiero Largo or Sword and Targa, it is a significant bias. Manciolino shows an even stronger bias towards the left foot forward guards. |
D'oh! Would you then describe to me context of the above images. Thanks 
(I knew I'd encountered a master who advocates right foot forward but I couldn't remember who. So when I found these images I thought I'd remembered)
However, do these images demonstrate that both right and left leg forward are considered useful by Marozzo?
| Elling Polden wrote: |
If having your shield destroyed was a major issue, you would see iron fittings on shield edges, which you as far as I know don't. |
We do see iron fittings on shield edges as well as (likely) rawhide, but only very occasionally. However, the assumption that if they got destroyed easily we'd see stronger shields does not follow. If the primary value of a shield is to defend against missile weapons then it's survivability against swords and axes is easily less important than it's total weight. It has been suggested that shields were frequently expendable items, such a shield need not survive the battle (especially if you have a spare in the baggage train). The apparent survivability of the scutum could be the exception.
The only point I'm certain of would be that there was a spectrum of durability present in shields.
Cheers,
Steven
Kunstbruder - Boston area Historical Combat Study
|
|
|
|
|
Steven Reich
Location: Arlington, VA Joined: 28 Oct 2003
Posts: 237
|
| Posted: Mon 17 Mar, 2008 7:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steven H wrote: | D'oh! Would you then describe to me context of the above images. Thanks
(I knew I'd encountered a master who advocates right foot forward but I couldn't remember who. So when I found these images I thought I'd remembered) |
These are all guard positions with the various weapons from the 1536 edition of Marozzo's treatise (I consider these plates to be more accurate than those in his 1568 edition).
They are, in order:
1. Spada e Rotella: Coda Lunga Stretta
2. Spada e Brocchiero: Porta di Ferro Alta*
3. Spada e Brocchiero: Coda Lunga Stretta
4. Spada e Brocchiero: Cinghiara Porta di Ferro Stretta
5. Spada e Brocchiero: Porta di Ferro Stretta
Note that #1 and #3 are the same guard with different weapon combinations. Plate #2 is not actually labeled in the treatise, but fits the description--somewhat. The others are all clearly labeled. As to what they are used for (context)--well, that's what the treatise is about 
| Steven H wrote: | | However, do these images demonstrate that both right and left leg forward are considered useful by Marozzo? |
Yes, he uses both right and left foot forward guards as according to tactic, circumstance and previous technique (since in the Bolognese system, guards are also the end position of attacks). However, a careful analysis of his system shows certain tendencies (the left-foot forward guards with shields being one of them). That said, I doubt that you would have ever heard Marozzo (or any of the Bolognese masters) tell you not to use one guard or the other without consideration of the tactical situation and the opponent.
Steve
Founder of NoVA-Assalto, an affiliate of the HEMA Alliance
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ken Speed
|
| Posted: Mon 17 Mar, 2008 7:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Vassilis,
You said, "Ken, the term "prehistoric" has a very specific meaning among history professionals. It specifically means lack of surviving written records from within that culture. The history professors I have listened to draw a sharp line between the records that come withing a certain culture and recorded observations of one culture by another culture.
Well! Now I'm confused. Aren't these the same history professionals who you said had wildly erratic positions on the same issues? Are you a "history professional"? I would expect that if someone were to use a word with , "...a very specific meaning..." they would have the grace to define their terminology. It seems I was mistaken.
you said, "In the case of the Viking raids, we get most of our 9th and 10th century information from monks who again are considered a "hostile source".""
Hmm, didn't your history professionals mention the Arab who traveled with the Rus? I'm sorry I can't remember his name but while he was certainly a cultural outsider he wasn't hostile to the Rus so much as amazed and stunned by them and their actions. His information is, I think, still considered matchless and is pretty contemporaneous with the Viking raids down the Atlantic. Yes, he is the the basis for the Arab in the Thirteenth Warrior but he and his writings are real. I think his is the only written account of an actual witness to a ship burial. I truly fail to see how he can be considered a "hostile source" people don't normally invite their enemies to funerals of their friends and family.
You seem to have missed my point when I mentioned Beowulf and the Sagas. I think Beowulf was recited scaldic verse like the Iliad but I think that the sagas existed in an earlier (now lost) written form before they were written down in Iceland.
I simply don't see how that much could be memorized. For some reason you also seem to discount runic and runic inscriptions.
|
|
|
|
|
Steven H
|
| Posted: Mon 17 Mar, 2008 8:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry for the time it took me to respond.
| Vassilis Tsafatinos wrote: |
I know a lot of people cringe when SCA rattan fighting is mentioned as an example, but I can't think or any other situation today where people are actually swinging polearms at full power. When the polearm strikes the far corner on my shield, the polearm usually deflects up. Occasionally it may blow throw my corner but I usually have the sword somewhere near my head as a backup. After it deflects it often loses a lot of its power and I can stop it with sword. |
Without a doubt the SCA and it's style of combat is a good testing ground. I'd be happy to make somewhat more realistic weapons and do SCA style with those. (I'm actively working on weapon designs - I already make a sword much more realistic than rattan that only hits as hard as rattan, but I want to be able to use less gear than SCA if possible)
| Vassilis Tsafatinos wrote: |
Blocking a polearm with sword at full speed is very hard on the hands otherwise. In the cases where it blows through, it is usually because I was faked low and did not get my corner up high enough in time.
If I keep the top edge flat, then that means I either have to sword-block my head, which can be painful against polearms... or I have to raise the whole shield to block which will both blind me and expose my leg more. |
I would use a different block against an oberhau. I'd use a hengen/krucke/vidlepoge block. I'd drive my sword hand up and drop my point in front of my shield while stepping out. The shield supports the foible of my sword so that the blow is spread across both. I don't have to raise my shield, blind myself or leave my leg open. And from that position I have a number of useful follow-ups - most of them based on my controlling the other weapon with my off-hand (weapon).
| Vassilis Tsafatinos wrote: |
In the artwork you mention were the heaters are in a horizontal position, are they engaged in combat? |
Yes.
| Vassilis Tsafatinos wrote: |
I'm not trying to be difficult, perhaps there is something that I am not seeing. I invite you to look at my polearm fights on youtube and help me reconcile any differences. In one of the video I am fighting a giant of a man 6'3" 270 lbs swinging a glaive. |
To be blunt the glaive man is not using it well. In this thread I explain why I think that. Simply, though the entire polearm is a weapon and he's not using it that way.
| Vassilis Tsafatinos wrote: |
For this reason most people in the SCA who fight with polearm as their primary weapon use a faster, lighter glaive. |
And this is one of things that some HEMA folks will object to about SCA: because lethality has no bearing on the game sportier weapons are preferred over weapons that would actually break armour.
| Vassilis Tsafatinos wrote: |
Did I say automatically? I apologize if I implied that. |
You mention it repeatedly and don't mention alternatives. (but take that as constructive criticism on how to improve the page.)
| Vassilis Tsafatinos wrote: |
Thrusts are great, they are easy, that is why I removed the thrusting tips on my swords for practice and only use them in tournament. Cutting from different angles is a lot harder skill to develop. I know you (Steven) already know the following, because I read it in your book. For the benefit of others, thrusts move slower then cuts. The thrust can only move as fast as the hand can move forward. The cut is moving three to four times faster because of the arch the sword is making. I still find thrusts extremely useful because you can make a cut and thrust in a single time action. If I thrust with my elbow high, the thrust serves as a windup for the cut that will follow... or in reverse if you cut you are in position to draw and cut. |
I haven't written a book but thank you!
Thrusts cover a shorter distance and so arrive in a smaller amount of time despite moving slower. I'll disagree that one is categorically easier than the other, each has its own complications, but it aint worth arguing over.
On the webpage you made you don't talk about cutting and following-up with a thrust. Nor do you talk about the various winding and binding actions possible with a thrust. And that is what I feel is missing.
| Vassilis Tsafatinos wrote: |
I am assuming we are both right handed. You are leading with your sword-side leg which will be exposed unless you shift your shield right or are out of range. You slope left to my sword-side, and now your leg is covered by your shield. What do you mean by "I can bind his sword with my shield and grapple". My reaction should be to pivot back on my left leg so we are facing off the same, just closer. If I don't pivot back, you don't need to grapple. If you get to my side like that you have a number of better options with your sword that may kill me or disable me without further risk to yourself. |
You know how to respond correctly. Not everyone does. And if I decieve you for a moment then you may not respond right even though you know what to do. And then my grapple can succeed. And the action I describe is useful whether I grapple or not. It is the opening play of I.33 and all core techniques can be performed from that position based on the responses of your opponent.
Again I don't think my leg is exposed. Especially if I hold my shield out pointed at the other guy - then the leading edge of my shield is ahead of my right leg. And if you cut low I slip it back and work from that position.
| Vassilis Tsafatinos wrote: |
Please do not misinterpret my responses as being a smart ass. It is my hope that through discussion with you I can find ways to fight better. |
I don't  And I may be obnoxiously pedantic about the value of period instruction.
Cheers,
Steven
Kunstbruder - Boston area Historical Combat Study
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Tsafa
Location: Brooklyn, NY Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 599
|
| Posted: Mon 17 Mar, 2008 10:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steven H wrote: |
Vassilis-
I think you make too much about having your right foot forward. Marozzo consistently shows the right foot forward for various sizes of shields (see the pictures). I.33 and Lichtenauerian tradition seems to freely switch between which foot is forward. Other masters prefer left leg forward.
So I have no doubt it can work - but you have to practice your style, especially the footwork, to make it work.
For instance my right leg is not in danger if I start left leg forward and cut an oberhau, because my opponent blocks the shot to the head instead of attacking my legs. If he blocks with the shield and cuts at my leg, then I can krump his sword hand or block with my own shield.
I lengthen my attack by stepping with the right and that is a useful tactic in and of itself. (I notice in the vids you linked to that you only show short attacks and not any long attacks).
Cheers,
Steven |
I think your're right. I do make too much of it. I have fought against people who effectively fight sword-leg forward with sword & shield. I can't remember 100% but I think in all those cases I experienced they had kite shields and they had the shield shifted over to the right so that it was flat in front of them. I do occasionally step out with it myself, unfortunately I often loose the right leg when I do. It is an action I have been trying to cut out.
Here is a video you may find interesting. I have the red helm and the silver shield. At about 2 min 30 sec you see me go into an offensive with multiple combination shots with my sword-leg forward. The knight I was fighting blocked every shot and stepped to his left to take advantage of how open I was when leading with my sword-leg.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMopZtqB7Ww
To add to the confusion, when I fence rapier my sword leg leads. If I use buckler it is in my rear hand in an extended position.
| Quote: | | You know how to respond correctly. Not everyone does. And if I decieve you for a moment then you may not respond right even though you know what to do. And then my grapple can succeed. And the action I describe is useful whether I grapple or not. It is the opening play of I.33 and all core techniques can be performed from that position based on the responses of your opponent. |
Ok, now that I know I understand the scenario, lets assume I don't pivot to correct and instead of striking you grapple. How do you do this. So you mean to grapple by hooking your shield on to mine and opening it to my left while striking down between the shield edge and the sword? or swiping both by sword & shield left and striking an off-side? Both of these I am familiar with and have experienced first hand. I don't know if you meant something else like dropping your shield and grabbing on to mine, or something else along those lines.
I am continuing to think about the other answers you gave me and thinking how I can best use them. Your responses are much appreciated.
| Ken Speed wrote: | Vassilis,
Well! Now I'm confused. Aren't these the same history professionals who you said had wildly erratic positions on the same issues? Are you a "history professional"? I would expect that if someone were to use a word with , "...a very specific meaning..." they would have the grace to define their terminology. It seems I was mistaken.
|
No I'm not a historian I just try to make sense of their non-sense for the sake of my own understanding. To give you a better idea of their level of uncertainty, consider the concept of Medieval European Feudalism. Did it even exist? This is a very hotly debated topic going back to the 1970's among Medieval Historians. We have a ton more historical data on European Feudalism vs Vikings or Celts and historians can't even pin down this basic concept. If you want to see your understanding of Feudalism turned on its head look up "The Tyranny of a Construct: Feudalism and Historians of Medieval Europe by Elizabeth A. R. Brown". She argues it never existed and she gets paid for it. According to another historian by the name of Philip Daileader, who was making fun of the current state of confusion he said," we don't have one Feudalism we have Feudalisms" (in the plural). Dr. Daileader explained in one of his lectures the intense competition that exists between different universities and the historians within those institutions. Some people have an interest in being conservative while others have an interest in shaking things up.
| Steven Reich wrote: |
Vassilis-
I found a statement of yours very interesting in a previous post:
| Vassilis Tsafatinos wrote: | | ...keep your sword-side foot back and make gathering steps forward... |
Now assuming I understand what you mean by a gathering step: drawing your rear foot up to your front foot, then stepping forward with your front foot. This is exactly the same step the Bolognese masters explicitly tell you to use to come into measure (except for Dall'Agocchie, although he does use that step). The Italians refer to this as un piede cacciare l'altro, that is "one foot chases the other" which I call a chasing step.
Steve |
By gathering step I meant an advance where the forward leg moves forward first to allow space for the back leg to move up. In reverse the back leg moves back first to allow room for the front leg to come back. I try to do this balanced so that my shoulders don't move keeping equal weight on my feet so I can go forward or back at any time without having to shift my weight. I believe this is the Italian method (chasing step) you mentioned.
What you describe as the Bolognese step is I have learned as shuffle steps. In the advance back leg comes up first and then front leg moves forward. In reverse, the front leg comes back and then the rear leg goes back.
I use the Italian method more but sometimes switch to shuffle steps to cause confusion and break patterns. I tend to use the shuffle steps more to retreat if someone is snipping at my knee and I need to get that front leg out of the way fast.
I use crossovers sometimes too if I want to cover a lot of distance. Mostly to bring me back into a one step range.
I have had a harder time with diagonal movements. The way I was taught, if you have your right foot forward and want to advance or retreat to the right, your front foot moves first even when retreating. With the right foot forward, if you want to advance or retreat to the left the back foot moves first. The concept as I have been taught is to end up as you started after the movement.
No athlete/youth can fight tenaciously who has never received any blows: he must see his blood flow and hear his teeth crack... then he will be ready for battle.
Roger of Hoveden, 1174-1201
www.poconoshooting.com
www.poconogym.com
Last edited by Bill Tsafa on Tue 18 Mar, 2008 2:35 am; edited 11 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anders Nilsson
|
| Posted: Mon 17 Mar, 2008 11:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Gavin Kisebach"] | Quote: | | On the topic of blocking with the corner of a shield as in the SCA, the major problem I have is that I think the edge would get hacked off very quickly. Has anyone ever tried cutting tests on a historically constructed heater shield? Knowing how much punishment a shield can take might change one's expectations entirely. |
My group has made some tests on shields. We used a vikingshield made the way vikings made them. It was 1 cm thick that makes 2-4 mm thicker than finds of vikingshields.
It was suspended so it could swing.
It was easily cut to pieces and penetrated by spears.
I for on belive that it proves the point that shields wasn´t used static. Unless in a sheildwall, but then shields would overlapp and support each other. In a fight and you used your shield static, it would be cut to bits. If used more like a blade to rather displace blow than block them, then it would not break.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ken Speed
|
| Posted: Tue 18 Mar, 2008 6:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Vassilis wrote,
"No I'm not a historian I just try to make sense of their non-sense for the sake of my own understanding. To give you a better idea of their level of uncertainty, consider the concept of Medieval European Feudalism. Did it even exist? This is a very hotly debated topic going back to the 1970's among Medieval Historians. We have a ton more historical data on European Feudalism vs Vikings or Celts and historians can't even pin down this basic concept. If you want to see your understanding of Feudalism turned on its head look up "The Tyranny of a Construct: Feudalism and Historians of Medieval Europe by Elizabeth A. R. Brown". She argues it never existed and she gets paid for it. According to another historian by the name of Philip Daileader, who was making fun of the current state of confusion he said," we don't have one Feudalism we have Feudalisms" (in the plural). Dr. Daileader explained in one of his lectures the intense competition that exists between different universities and the historians within those institutions. Some people have an interest in being conservative while others have an interest in shaking things up."
Yes, I'm somewhat familiar with what goes on in academic circles. Knife fights would be cleaner! The ones I loved were the Marxist sociologists; to me professing Marxist sociology is similar to saying that you're a member of the KKK who supports civil rights. I had a window into the workings of an English department long ago and the politics and other things were disgusting. By contrast the occasional myopia of the hard scientists is extremely amusing. Last year the local stations were warning people against over-exposure to the Sun and a researcher was saying that they couldn't figure out why so many more young woman were showing signs of sun damage compared to men of the same age. How many young men do you see working on their tan compared to young women? I thought it was priceless. 
My apologies to all for an extremely off topic reply,
Ken Speed
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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