>> Joerg, despite my respect for you, I must be blunt. You don't >> know what you're talking about. Have you read Delbruck? Dupuys? >> Froissart? Evidently not. I'll be happy to take up this topic >> off-line.
Where I put it. However, Brent forces me to get public again:
> Perhaps others have voiced support in email for your cause, but in any
> event I did want to say that I have also read a bunch of military history
> and all of what you say "rings true" to me. The details are all much
> fuzzier in my head than they seem to be in yours (but perhaps you used
> references and don't know all that stuff off the top of your head,
> either), but Joerg is clearly writing as an archery-partisan, who has
> perhaps never read "real" (I use that word advisedly) sources.
So: Yes, I am an archery partisan. I feel that archery isn't understood by the majority of people, and I do have an opinion based on a personal relationship to archery. Including all kind of strange experiences.
No, I haven't read either of the secondary sources Sandy puts forth. They aren't expert sources on the problems of archery I am concerned with, and therefore I ignored them.
I did read contemporary sources (most, but not all, in translations) and check them with my experiences. Are these real enough? And I did read enough "real" sources on the times we are discussing.
I know that my personal experiences are not the real thing, but I know enough physics, (general) history and archaeology to have an opinion not just based on wishful thinking.
Let's not get personal. Like Sandy, I am willing to take this to private discussion, but I won't be left standing as an incompetent. No offense taken, yet, though.
Anyway, I won't continue this discussion here before I have contacted an experimental archaeologist (and archery partisan) and got his opinion, or maybe even experimental results. As a scientifically minded person, I prefer facts to theory.
Powered by hypermail