"Pagan menace." LOL The vikings were actually way more civiliced then christian Europe, their women had equal rights to men, no king could just randomly go kill someone. Besides, christians tortured their enemys too and also robbed others.
@lordrah And I´m sure rest of the world later on were fond of the civilisation of the English, been shut by them and all. At least Viking fought with equal terms and not hiding behind a gun.
^Ahigaru (a correction for above). Portable shields were used on the battlefield (so that hands could be kept free), and during the third and fourth centuries, shields attached to the body were used in Japan... But again, once the Samurai took over (in terms of class), the primary weapons shifted to two-handed for Japan. China employed shields, as did the Koreans... But not to the extent or use of medieval weaponry (which has different strengths and weaknesses to Asian weaponry).
@MrBrent123t Specially made to block? If u study swords made from... lets say 800 and on u'll see that they are just as good as any other sword to block with. Or are u referring to dual wielding? witch I think is just a good way of getting a spear in the guts :)
@balletlunatic Actually you'll find that Chinese dynasties did use shields. They just did not use shields with their cavalry, generally because they utilized weapons that needed two hands. As for Japan, they initially used shields early on, but their style of warfare changed. The large shoulder guards generally acted as shields though, and they made use of pavises. So they weren't entirely without them.
@balletlunatic also the Japanese used their swords which were specially made to block attacks. European swords couldn't be relied on to block until much later; with the invention of the rapier.
@MrBrent123t You are kidding about that, correct? Long swords parry, almost every sword in the Medieval arsenal can parry (you just don't parry with the edge of the weapon, you use the flat side)... There were a reason sword-breakers were employed by some knights as well... You didn't directly block an attack with swords either, you parried, or deflected, no matter the culture... The rapier is one of the worst swords to block with, by far, unless faced another rapier, you cannot parry with it.
every culture used shields in one time or another in their history
but every culture had some time when the use of shield was abandoned
roman soldiers used shields much bigger then any of the English shield in any time. the Macedonian phalanx abandoned shields all together. and if you watched the episode on the swords in the 14th century shield are pretty much abandoned in favor of plate armor and the Longsword.
@balletlunatic Asia does use shields, somewhat. The Chinse did.
In Japan it went away as the Japanese use weapons in the left hand, not a shield. The long katana and short wakizashi, or katana two handed, or their bow. Knights used shield and lances on horseback. Samurai were mounted archers.
@balletlunatic Before the rise of the Samurai in ancient Japan, shields were used to some extent... Mostly the lack of shields has to do with the large ammount of two handed weaponry (from the Katana, to the bow), both of which were employed by Samurai -- who as others have noted, were in large part mounted archers when they rode a horse... The foot soldiers -- Asugaru and such-- also typically wielded the two-handed spears (depending upon the era). Part One.
@Braveheart101TLK Not true at all. In the early days of Samurai history, they did use shields, because they were also using one handed spears and swords. However, even in the Samurai's golden age (sengoku jidai), they still used pavise type shields to protect encampments and gunners.
However they did have personal shields. They wore them on their shoulders. They're part of a samurai's armour kit already.
But again, it's hard to use a shield when you have a large number of two handed weapons.
@Kisk79 Yes and of course if one had a good armor on, the need for a shield wasn´t that great, the European knight in full plate armor, at the end of the feudal era, didn´t really use shields either any more.
@Kisk79 I know this is coming really late but The Gorin No Sho by Miyamoto Musashi clearly states that the samurai needs no shield as the sword can provide the necessary protection.
@Braveheart101TLK Musashi was a pushover if you actually look up the history about it. I'd suggest the Samurai Archives forums, or Historum. I wouldn't take much of what Musashi wrote at face value.
@PompeusMagnus This is a round shield. Of course you're going to get larger shields using a squared shape. Besides, this is nearly a metre in circumference. That is an exceptionally large shield for it's type.
@PompeusMagnus Yes, because it is a square shield, and is not for personal use. But try and get the maneuverability you get with a round personal shield with that of a scutum or pavise... It's not gonna happen.
@Kisk79 Dude i'm not talking about maneuverability i'm talking about size, that guy said it's huge but i said there are bigger's... and that is it... I personally own a Buckler (caetra), wtich is my favorite type of shield, and still it's in my culture, since i come from Portugal, witch the lusitannians used the caetra a lot...
@PompeusMagnus The shield is huge for it's type. Most of those shields were smaller than 500 cm across. This one is over a meter in diameter. That is a "huge" round personal shield.
@Kisk79 The Roman scutum? Those things were fairly mobile, they needed to be. The Romans were heavy infantry that moved like light infantry. They key advatange (espeically against the Greek powers like Macedon) was their mobility and flexibility. The scutum wasn't overly big, the Romans were just small people (small for their time, people have grown quite a bit over the centuries). I believe the scutum was only about 3 ft tall and 2 ft across.
Well it's closer to almost 3.5 ft by 3 ft. (3.48 x 2.9). But what I am saying is that it is less maneuverable compared to a round shield. You can move a round shield in nearly every direction with relative ease, because there is less material to move. But that's not to say the scutum is not maneuverable at all.
@Kisk79 It certainly is far and beyond a pavise shield which is basically a portable wall, but a smaller shield would be better. The scutum is a good defense, but not as great of an offense as other shields. You can block with it very well, but attacking was left to the gladius.
@PompeusMagnus Well... the Scutum was very big, but both the legionaries of the Marian reform and the Saxon Kiel had a bigger shields, the long shield as depicded at the Bayoux "Carpet" :P
@Erian917 I've met him. He was doing a weapon demonstration at the site of the Battle of Falkirk and I got talking to him afterwards. It was a very memorable experience.
It's worthy of noting that a punishment called "spreadeagling" did exist in the 1700s, but it involves being lashed to two poles at ankle and wrist, which then are placed like an X, and no invasive surgery was involved. It was like being in the stocks.
This was coined from the popular heraldry term by people who hadn't shifted through ancient Norse writings, where the bloodeagle never mentions spreading, anyway. Different punishment, different name.
So, barring some contributions to someone else's book and articles in a non-academic journal, he's an amateur historian and TV presenter. Cool. Amateurs are capable of great contributions. Yet, we're still left with the fact that Mike was blatantly wrong about the bloodeagle, confusing it with a more common word, spreadeagle, which has a different origin.
The editors of the OED are not amateurs in this. They have people that can actually read primary sources. ;)
The OED, despite it's claims also does not use words which have evolved in the English language if used in things such as newspapers and magazines, despite the common usage. I'd recommend Simon Winchester's lecture on the History of the OED on the television show Big Ideas (you can find a podcast of it on the tvo website). Very well done. I can send you the link in a PM if you'd like.
If the OED traces the common idiom of "spreadeagle" back to a heraldry term rather than an obscure Viking torture only sporadically mentioned by the Vikings themselves, I'm inclined to trust them even if they don't usually include usages arising from magazines and other ephemera.
Although, I can observe a citation from the Tatler, a famous early magazine, right now for the entry of the word "declare."
Wrong. The ancient Norse for the act translates to the "bloody eagle" with never a word near it that describes spreading.
You and this Loades chump have both confounded two entirely different terms. Check a dictionary with a good etymological section such as the OED. Spreadeagle is a heraldry term for the symbol of an eagle with legs and wings outsplayed.
Anyone who thinks the two terms are the same is a fool who never read a primary source... like Mike Loades.
In concluding this, I'll give you that I was over-the-top in calling him an outright fraud, but the error does raise more warning flags concerning the rest of his presentation than had it been correctly called a bloodeagle. Sloppy fact-checking, at the very least.
Actually, it doesn't depend at all. That's a strange claim.
The style of torture is ancient and no longer practiced. While vocabulary may change for terms still in use, you can't claim that what the vikings explicitly called "blóðugr ara" or "bloodeagle" and never "spreadeagle" now differs based on region. The people who practiced it named it.
So, yes, Mike Loades has revealed that he probably has never read a primary source or original text, i.e., is a fraud spreading junk history.
Seeing as how historians argue on whether blood eagle actually exists (it's only mentioned in some Skaldic Poetry, which hardly qualifies as a primary source). The word eagle is actually "örn", as used in the Norna-Gests þáttr.
And yes the terminology is different depending on where you live. Much like how the hood of a car is called a bonnet in England, spread eagle is also utilized in England (and this is where the original meaning of such a term comes from).
Mike Loades treats it as a real practice. Where are you going with half of your response, other than to undermine his presentation's thoroughness more? It's irrelevant.
To the relevant half: A term for an ancient practice that few people speak today cannot vary from region to region. It has no currency in the modern language. The ancients have only "bloodeagle" and its variants.
Also, you'll see that "ara" is another norse word for eagle. Either way, it means bloodeagle, you admit.
Skaldic poetry, btw, certainly does qualify as a primary source, and as equally worthy of study.
The long poems regarding the battles of Maldon and Brunanburgh have historical weight. One of those is an actual entry in the main chronicle of Anglo-Saxon England. The Edda is also in verse.
Ancient writers often put serious topics into poetry, not regarding it as a medium of mere fluff to which it has degenerated today. Nor is ancient prose freer of error that it could be considered "better"
It qualifies, but there is a certain kind of embellishment in it that one should be wary of extreme personal bias within the prose. It is only useful if backed up by other sources. Used on it's own and it has very little to stand on.
Also, I take back my comment of spread eagle. I have heard both blood eagle and spread eagle both used interchangeably. However the word usage is irrelevant, the meaning has still been given.
To discount someone as "no real historian", you need to have a lot of weight behind that as well (i.e. you need to be a well respected historian with books of your own published and peer reviewed).
A different word is used for a program that for all intents and purposes is meant for "the masses", and you come along saying such things? You are the one who is no real historian, if you're going to make one word change into something so huge, when there could be many reasons to change the word.
He himself really doesn't have any published books other than a few cartoon "arms and armor" articles in a few non-peer reviewed hobbyist magazines. Why should you hold others to a standard to which you haven't held him? Because he's a TV personality and TV has such exacting standards for itself?
Nowhere on his site does he even briefly mention a PhD. Coincidence, you think?
So, does this mean that he doesn't have enough weight to judge the knowledge of others either?
I assume you haven't heard of his book Worldwide History of Warfare published by Thames and Hudson, or his lectures at the Wallace Collection, London, or The Royal Armouries, or the University of Aberdeen, as well as his numerous articles in academic journals (such as the journals published by The Arms and Armour Society, which was founded by a member of the Society of Antiquaries of London).
Worldwide History of Warfare is by Tim Newark. You are correct to assume that I haven't heard about Mike Loades writing books that he actually didn't write. With good reason.
The Arms and Armour Society is apparently run by a non-academic editor named Anthony Dove and shares the same URL as a website design consultancy. I bet it isn't in the lexis-nexis databases on universities either, ie., it is a hobbyist mag.
And what did you have to say concerning his PhD? Does he have one?
I mistyped that. The book itself is by Tim Newark, but Mike Loades was commissioned to write section introductions in the book, and chapters on weapons and armour.
I also don't think you've gone to the proper Arms and Armour Society website. Ewart Oakeshott (who created the Oakeshott typology of swords) founded The Arms and Armour Society.
As for a PhD. I do not believe he has one, but neither Oakeshott, or Joseph Needham, or Will Durant (he did have one in Philosophy, he didn't care for it.)
And to lecture at the University of Aberdeen, is another matter entirely. It has been given great renown in teaching quality and research. One does not get to lecture there if they are an idiot or a hack.
Hmph. I've read Cicero and Caesar in the original text. I've read the Wanderer and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle in the originals. I've read the Icelandic Sagas, albeit in translation. I've forgotten more about history than you will ever learn, chump. Do not interrupt your betters, troll.
Suden who shit
SuperRoadkill10 1 month ago
"Pagan menace." LOL The vikings were actually way more civiliced then christian Europe, their women had equal rights to men, no king could just randomly go kill someone. Besides, christians tortured their enemys too and also robbed others.
MsDjessa 1 month ago
@MsDjessa I'm sure most British were fond of the Vikings "equality for all," as they had their heads split open by an axe.
lordrah 1 month ago
@lordrah And I´m sure rest of the world later on were fond of the civilisation of the English, been shut by them and all. At least Viking fought with equal terms and not hiding behind a gun.
MsDjessa 1 month ago
mike loades something about "bloody eagle"
Assaultwarfare 8 months ago
1:45
"An amazingly strong image"...
Of Cthulhu!
AnonymousUbiquity 9 months ago
Thank you for placing this video up :), this man knows what he is talking about.
tomcat2222 9 months ago
^Ahigaru (a correction for above). Portable shields were used on the battlefield (so that hands could be kept free), and during the third and fourth centuries, shields attached to the body were used in Japan... But again, once the Samurai took over (in terms of class), the primary weapons shifted to two-handed for Japan. China employed shields, as did the Koreans... But not to the extent or use of medieval weaponry (which has different strengths and weaknesses to Asian weaponry).
tomcat2222 9 months ago
@MrBrent123t Specially made to block? If u study swords made from... lets say 800 and on u'll see that they are just as good as any other sword to block with. Or are u referring to dual wielding? witch I think is just a good way of getting a spear in the guts :)
secularnevrosis 1 year ago
Why didn't asian cultures like the chinese and japanese use shields?? I think they were used in india and the philippines but not there.
balletlunatic 1 year ago
@balletlunatic Actually you'll find that Chinese dynasties did use shields. They just did not use shields with their cavalry, generally because they utilized weapons that needed two hands. As for Japan, they initially used shields early on, but their style of warfare changed. The large shoulder guards generally acted as shields though, and they made use of pavises. So they weren't entirely without them.
Kisk79 1 year ago 5
@balletlunatic also the Japanese used their swords which were specially made to block attacks. European swords couldn't be relied on to block until much later; with the invention of the rapier.
MrBrent123t 1 year ago
@MrBrent123t You are kidding about that, correct? Long swords parry, almost every sword in the Medieval arsenal can parry (you just don't parry with the edge of the weapon, you use the flat side)... There were a reason sword-breakers were employed by some knights as well... You didn't directly block an attack with swords either, you parried, or deflected, no matter the culture... The rapier is one of the worst swords to block with, by far, unless faced another rapier, you cannot parry with it.
tomcat2222 9 months ago
@tomcat2222 It is true you can "block" with the Katana, I don't disagree with you on that... But the rest...
tomcat2222 9 months ago
@balletlunatic
every culture used shields in one time or another in their history
but every culture had some time when the use of shield was abandoned
roman soldiers used shields much bigger then any of the English shield in any time. the Macedonian phalanx abandoned shields all together. and if you watched the episode on the swords in the 14th century shield are pretty much abandoned in favor of plate armor and the Longsword.
MartianSanta 1 year ago
@balletlunatic
Deungpae a Korean Shield
kalasag shield a Philippine Shield
MartianSanta 1 year ago
@balletlunatic
and last comment
the Japanese actually had a war fan made of metal or wood called the Gumbai
used to deflect arrows, give orders and cool your self in a hot day
MartianSanta 1 year ago
@balletlunatic Asia does use shields, somewhat. The Chinse did.
In Japan it went away as the Japanese use weapons in the left hand, not a shield. The long katana and short wakizashi, or katana two handed, or their bow. Knights used shield and lances on horseback. Samurai were mounted archers.
weirdguy7 1 year ago
@balletlunatic Before the rise of the Samurai in ancient Japan, shields were used to some extent... Mostly the lack of shields has to do with the large ammount of two handed weaponry (from the Katana, to the bow), both of which were employed by Samurai -- who as others have noted, were in large part mounted archers when they rode a horse... The foot soldiers -- Asugaru and such-- also typically wielded the two-handed spears (depending upon the era). Part One.
tomcat2222 9 months ago
@balletlunatic The Japanese did not use shields because the Samurai believed the shield to be for dishonorable cowards.
Braveheart101TLK 8 months ago
@Braveheart101TLK Not true at all. In the early days of Samurai history, they did use shields, because they were also using one handed spears and swords. However, even in the Samurai's golden age (sengoku jidai), they still used pavise type shields to protect encampments and gunners.
However they did have personal shields. They wore them on their shoulders. They're part of a samurai's armour kit already.
But again, it's hard to use a shield when you have a large number of two handed weapons.
Kisk79 8 months ago 8
@Kisk79 Yes and of course if one had a good armor on, the need for a shield wasn´t that great, the European knight in full plate armor, at the end of the feudal era, didn´t really use shields either any more.
MsDjessa 1 month ago
@Kisk79 I know this is coming really late but The Gorin No Sho by Miyamoto Musashi clearly states that the samurai needs no shield as the sword can provide the necessary protection.
Braveheart101TLK 1 week ago
@Braveheart101TLK Musashi was a pushover if you actually look up the history about it. I'd suggest the Samurai Archives forums, or Historum. I wouldn't take much of what Musashi wrote at face value.
Kisk79 1 week ago
@Braveheart101TLK well if they said that, it would make them even more cowards considering how much armor they had, :P
IcyViking 8 months ago
@Braveheart101TLK thats f*cking retarded
princeofiron 2 weeks ago
@balletlunatic
Oh boy, you have a lot of studying to do.
Vovk3 1 month ago in playlist More videos from Kisk79
@balletlunatic The Japanese thought of the sheild as cowardly, and in Japanese society, cowardice = death, so they never used it.
masterninjaman1 2 weeks ago
She is astounded by his knowledge of shields. They will fuck later.
crackorjackzors 1 year ago
I used to think shields as just a portable wall to hide behind. Now I see it in a new way. Too bad u can't bash ppl with it in Mount n Blade
Droopydog545 1 year ago
but these shields first used befor this in ireland and skandinavia
AMDFKane 1 year ago
If this guy thinks that this shield is big then go and see a Scutum... ou a Pavise
PompeusMagnus 1 year ago
@PompeusMagnus This is a round shield. Of course you're going to get larger shields using a squared shape. Besides, this is nearly a metre in circumference. That is an exceptionally large shield for it's type.
Kisk79 1 year ago
@Kisk79 Still the Pavise is bigger...
PompeusMagnus 1 year ago
@PompeusMagnus Yes, because it is a square shield, and is not for personal use. But try and get the maneuverability you get with a round personal shield with that of a scutum or pavise... It's not gonna happen.
Kisk79 1 year ago
@Kisk79 Dude i'm not talking about maneuverability i'm talking about size, that guy said it's huge but i said there are bigger's... and that is it... I personally own a Buckler (caetra), wtich is my favorite type of shield, and still it's in my culture, since i come from Portugal, witch the lusitannians used the caetra a lot...
PompeusMagnus 1 year ago
@PompeusMagnus The shield is huge for it's type. Most of those shields were smaller than 500 cm across. This one is over a meter in diameter. That is a "huge" round personal shield.
Kisk79 1 year ago
@Kisk79 The Roman scutum? Those things were fairly mobile, they needed to be. The Romans were heavy infantry that moved like light infantry. They key advatange (espeically against the Greek powers like Macedon) was their mobility and flexibility. The scutum wasn't overly big, the Romans were just small people (small for their time, people have grown quite a bit over the centuries). I believe the scutum was only about 3 ft tall and 2 ft across.
demomanchaos 1 year ago
@demomanchaos
Well it's closer to almost 3.5 ft by 3 ft. (3.48 x 2.9). But what I am saying is that it is less maneuverable compared to a round shield. You can move a round shield in nearly every direction with relative ease, because there is less material to move. But that's not to say the scutum is not maneuverable at all.
Kisk79 1 year ago
@Kisk79 It certainly is far and beyond a pavise shield which is basically a portable wall, but a smaller shield would be better. The scutum is a good defense, but not as great of an offense as other shields. You can block with it very well, but attacking was left to the gladius.
demomanchaos 1 year ago
@PompeusMagnus Well... the Scutum was very big, but both the legionaries of the Marian reform and the Saxon Kiel had a bigger shields, the long shield as depicded at the Bayoux "Carpet" :P
FaakedLillebror 1 year ago
<sighs> I just love him.... I would do anything to work with him for even a day XP
Erian917 1 year ago 2
@Erian917 I've met him. He was doing a weapon demonstration at the site of the Battle of Falkirk and I got talking to him afterwards. It was a very memorable experience.
englishfrenchgerman 1 year ago
@englishfrenchgerman I can imagine. You're so lucky ;)
Erian917 1 year ago
Wow, all of these awesome historians know how to shoot arrows, throw javelins, and throw axes.
theguyi26 1 year ago 4
Does anyone every get hurt making these videos? lol
cryora 1 year ago
this is guy is crazy
FreeeeS 1 year ago
Belin come gasi ci credi un casino. Awesome!
SerPiladeGrimaldi 1 year ago
It's worthy of noting that a punishment called "spreadeagling" did exist in the 1700s, but it involves being lashed to two poles at ankle and wrist, which then are placed like an X, and no invasive surgery was involved. It was like being in the stocks.
This was coined from the popular heraldry term by people who hadn't shifted through ancient Norse writings, where the bloodeagle never mentions spreading, anyway. Different punishment, different name.
Cynewulfe 2 years ago
And still rather unpleasant. :)
BlackWaltz5 1 year ago
So, barring some contributions to someone else's book and articles in a non-academic journal, he's an amateur historian and TV presenter. Cool. Amateurs are capable of great contributions. Yet, we're still left with the fact that Mike was blatantly wrong about the bloodeagle, confusing it with a more common word, spreadeagle, which has a different origin.
The editors of the OED are not amateurs in this. They have people that can actually read primary sources. ;)
Cynewulfe 2 years ago
Common mistake really. Jacques Papinot, a respected historian on Japanese history got some dates and facts wrong.
I wouldn't discredit all that he says because of a word being said wrong.
Kisk79 2 years ago
The OED, despite it's claims also does not use words which have evolved in the English language if used in things such as newspapers and magazines, despite the common usage. I'd recommend Simon Winchester's lecture on the History of the OED on the television show Big Ideas (you can find a podcast of it on the tvo website). Very well done. I can send you the link in a PM if you'd like.
Kisk79 2 years ago
If the OED traces the common idiom of "spreadeagle" back to a heraldry term rather than an obscure Viking torture only sporadically mentioned by the Vikings themselves, I'm inclined to trust them even if they don't usually include usages arising from magazines and other ephemera.
Although, I can observe a citation from the Tatler, a famous early magazine, right now for the entry of the word "declare."
Cynewulfe 2 years ago
Um, bloodeagle and spead-eagle are interchangeable terms.
EvilxMerlin 2 years ago
Wrong. The ancient Norse for the act translates to the "bloody eagle" with never a word near it that describes spreading.
You and this Loades chump have both confounded two entirely different terms. Check a dictionary with a good etymological section such as the OED. Spreadeagle is a heraldry term for the symbol of an eagle with legs and wings outsplayed.
Anyone who thinks the two terms are the same is a fool who never read a primary source... like Mike Loades.
Cynewulfe 2 years ago
In concluding this, I'll give you that I was over-the-top in calling him an outright fraud, but the error does raise more warning flags concerning the rest of his presentation than had it been correctly called a bloodeagle. Sloppy fact-checking, at the very least.
Cynewulfe 2 years ago
That's the blood eagle, not spread eagle. This guy is a joke, and no real historian. What an embarassment for him on public TV.
Cynewulfe 2 years ago
Actually both terms are interchangeable with the method of torture Mike Loades describes. It depends on where one lives.
Kisk79 2 years ago
Actually, it doesn't depend at all. That's a strange claim.
The style of torture is ancient and no longer practiced. While vocabulary may change for terms still in use, you can't claim that what the vikings explicitly called "blóðugr ara" or "bloodeagle" and never "spreadeagle" now differs based on region. The people who practiced it named it.
So, yes, Mike Loades has revealed that he probably has never read a primary source or original text, i.e., is a fraud spreading junk history.
Cynewulfe 2 years ago
Seeing as how historians argue on whether blood eagle actually exists (it's only mentioned in some Skaldic Poetry, which hardly qualifies as a primary source). The word eagle is actually "örn", as used in the Norna-Gests þáttr.
And yes the terminology is different depending on where you live. Much like how the hood of a car is called a bonnet in England, spread eagle is also utilized in England (and this is where the original meaning of such a term comes from).
Kisk79 2 years ago
Mike Loades treats it as a real practice. Where are you going with half of your response, other than to undermine his presentation's thoroughness more? It's irrelevant.
To the relevant half: A term for an ancient practice that few people speak today cannot vary from region to region. It has no currency in the modern language. The ancients have only "bloodeagle" and its variants.
Also, you'll see that "ara" is another norse word for eagle. Either way, it means bloodeagle, you admit.
Cynewulfe 2 years ago
Skaldic poetry, btw, certainly does qualify as a primary source, and as equally worthy of study.
The long poems regarding the battles of Maldon and Brunanburgh have historical weight. One of those is an actual entry in the main chronicle of Anglo-Saxon England. The Edda is also in verse.
Ancient writers often put serious topics into poetry, not regarding it as a medium of mere fluff to which it has degenerated today. Nor is ancient prose freer of error that it could be considered "better"
Cynewulfe 2 years ago
It qualifies, but there is a certain kind of embellishment in it that one should be wary of extreme personal bias within the prose. It is only useful if backed up by other sources. Used on it's own and it has very little to stand on.
Also, I take back my comment of spread eagle. I have heard both blood eagle and spread eagle both used interchangeably. However the word usage is irrelevant, the meaning has still been given.
Kisk79 2 years ago
To discount someone as "no real historian", you need to have a lot of weight behind that as well (i.e. you need to be a well respected historian with books of your own published and peer reviewed).
A different word is used for a program that for all intents and purposes is meant for "the masses", and you come along saying such things? You are the one who is no real historian, if you're going to make one word change into something so huge, when there could be many reasons to change the word.
Kisk79 2 years ago
He himself really doesn't have any published books other than a few cartoon "arms and armor" articles in a few non-peer reviewed hobbyist magazines. Why should you hold others to a standard to which you haven't held him? Because he's a TV personality and TV has such exacting standards for itself?
Nowhere on his site does he even briefly mention a PhD. Coincidence, you think?
So, does this mean that he doesn't have enough weight to judge the knowledge of others either?
Cynewulfe 2 years ago
I assume you haven't heard of his book Worldwide History of Warfare published by Thames and Hudson, or his lectures at the Wallace Collection, London, or The Royal Armouries, or the University of Aberdeen, as well as his numerous articles in academic journals (such as the journals published by The Arms and Armour Society, which was founded by a member of the Society of Antiquaries of London).
Not to mention his work with National Geographic.
Kisk79 2 years ago
Worldwide History of Warfare is by Tim Newark. You are correct to assume that I haven't heard about Mike Loades writing books that he actually didn't write. With good reason.
The Arms and Armour Society is apparently run by a non-academic editor named Anthony Dove and shares the same URL as a website design consultancy. I bet it isn't in the lexis-nexis databases on universities either, ie., it is a hobbyist mag.
And what did you have to say concerning his PhD? Does he have one?
Cynewulfe 2 years ago
I mistyped that. The book itself is by Tim Newark, but Mike Loades was commissioned to write section introductions in the book, and chapters on weapons and armour.
I also don't think you've gone to the proper Arms and Armour Society website. Ewart Oakeshott (who created the Oakeshott typology of swords) founded The Arms and Armour Society.
As for a PhD. I do not believe he has one, but neither Oakeshott, or Joseph Needham, or Will Durant (he did have one in Philosophy, he didn't care for it.)
Kisk79 2 years ago
And to lecture at the University of Aberdeen, is another matter entirely. It has been given great renown in teaching quality and research. One does not get to lecture there if they are an idiot or a hack.
Kisk79 2 years ago
Comment removed
Stahlratte1970 2 years ago
Hmph. I've read Cicero and Caesar in the original text. I've read the Wanderer and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle in the originals. I've read the Icelandic Sagas, albeit in translation. I've forgotten more about history than you will ever learn, chump. Do not interrupt your betters, troll.
Cynewulfe 2 years ago
excellent!
Octavius0 2 years ago
Jesus, spread eagle sounds like it'd be shit-TAY!
lazyweb 2 years ago
thnx for putting this up looking foward to the rest
josh3357 2 years ago 9