Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Sharp weapons is a pretty big and contentious topic in the historical fencing and historical European martial arts (HEMA) community today. Most people agree that training with sharp blades eventually becomes necessary at one point or another, but there’s still a great deal of disagreement on where this point lies — whether cutting practice is of any benefit to the avarage sword practitioner, how much skill and control must be learned/acquired before someone can start doing some drills with sharp swords instead of relying exclusively on blunts, and all that kind of stuff. There’s at least one article and one video I’d recommend for a good overview of this subject:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T21uXihIZcI
You might also want to check out J.C. Amberger’s “The Secret History of the Sword” — it’s an old book from the 1990s so many of the things it says about HEMA have become rather outdated today, but its collection of historical anecdotes (many of which concerned duelling with sharps) is still quite interesting and useful. Best of all, Amberger has recently decided to release it for free distribution.
Damn. I can’t even decide which I should say first between “Thanks” and “Wow.”
People, if you really need any more proof that our super-admin really does way more than what anyone can reasonably expect from a site admin, here it is.
CatP wrote:A second error that bugged me enough to put the book down was the hero changing the spark plugs of a DIESEL car for the heroine.Ahahahah. A classic prank, that. Just ask any experienced mechanic about the things he/she does to make fun of a rookie.
Yeah. The original A Study in Scarlet had “Barts” as you said in the first post. But Benedict Cumberbatch said “St. Barts” pretty clearly on one occasion. I wonder if more extensive trans-Atlantic travel has caused a creeping change in the way Londoners call the hospital?
Whoa. My sleeves aren’t that big these days. It’s a side effect of wearing (and making) better-fitted clothing, I say.
Seriously, though, I hope there’s somebody else who can pull off that miracle today!
ErinMH wrote:I_clausewitz did a course on archery on the old site — in 2008 and 2009, I think. Definitely could use a revisit!I still have fond memories of that class. In the meantime, though, I’ve learned so many new things about archery and writing that the material I wrote back then feels outdated and inadequate, not the least because it tries to cover too much ground in one go.
JuneDrexler wrote:Of course, much as I love LotR one of the things I always hated about it is the notion that elves are always good and orcs always evil. If I’d done LotR fan fic I would have wanted to write about a moral orc or an evil elf, just because I can’t suspend belief to an entire race being morally right or wrongIt’s part of the reason why Tolkien felt so disappointed about not being able to publish the Silmarillion in his lifetime — there we see elves (and humans) behaving badly and essentially causing the ruin of the First Age (as well as the Downfall of Numenor). By the time of LotR’s third age these folks had suffered from the selection effect and we only get to see the (relatively virtuous) surviving minority.
The BBC Sherlock also refers to the London St. Bartholomew’s at “St. Barts.” Maybe the younger crowd does call the hospital differently.
The nature of the “mistake” that prevented German success in the Western Front has always been in debate since it happened, and as far as I’m aware there has never been any broad consensus about it among serious historians. Some go so far as blaming the Prussian general staff for preparing a plan that wouldn’t work unless Germany started the war and invaded first, while others think the Germans actually did better than they should and this advantageous position allowed them to launch the Michael Offensive later in the war — only to fail because no one had developed an appropriate doctrine for exploiting and consolidating the spectacular successes made possible by the new stormtrooper tactics being developed by all sides, and/or because the USA had pitched in to provide a numerical superiority that offset the loss of Russia in the east. And of course all sorts of theories in between.
