> From: "Styopa" <liebx004_at_maroon.tc.umn.edu>
> >>Hmmm. I guess the proof is in the pudding - I don't see any Mongol
> >>states around in 1995, do you?
> > Er. How about Mongolia?
> That fearsome state.
[snip]
> >And Afghanistan (Tamerland saw himself as heir to the Mongols, and
> >I'm not so sure he was wrong)?
> Another mighty and fearsome state.
While we are at this I think it's about time we re-assessed the might of the Roman Empire. Oh sure they were all very impressive in their day, but then they got rolled over. Where are they now?
Italy exists, but it's not up to much - only existed as a country for about 130 years - got so badly whipped in both world wars that it would up changing sides - invented the maffia. You know.
Now if that's the best successor to Rome that we've got, Rome must have been shockingly overrated. Since they wrote all the history books I guess they must have puffed themselves up.
<Sarcasm off>
So things change. Just because 750 years later some of the gilt has worn off, doesn't mean that it wasn't there once.
Arrows
I was just re-reading the account in Njall's Saga of the attack on Gunnar of Hilarende. In it Gunnar holds off a superior force alone with his bow. He is said to kill one man with his Halbard, and kill one and wound eight more (presumably with the bow) before his bowstring is cut and he eventually falls by weight of numbers.
There's no mention of armour, but since the attackers planned it so it would be reasonable to assume that they had some.
A medaevilist friend of mine tells me that Icelandic Saga's were never treated as medaevil literature on his course, though I can't quite work out why.
Powered by hypermail