01-06-2016, 10:52 AM
(This post was last modified: 01-06-2016, 11:19 AM by caiusbeerquitius.)
Na, I meant the discussion on pg. 53.-56. For a dissertation? I´d expect something like this in a not so good Proseminar paper.
Why?
1st: A historical comparison is difficult to make. There is a specified method for that, the author seems to be unaware of. Generally a historical comparison is useless in the most cases. See the chapter on method in:
W. Riess, Apuleius und die Räuber. Ein Beitrag zur historischen Kriminalitätsforschung (Heidelberger Althistorische Beiträge und Epigraphische Studien vol. 35), Stuttgart 2001.
So here we get an argument stating that the criteria for development of WWI steel helmets can be compared to the criteria of Roman helmets. This is simply not correct, however, for a variety of reasons (cultural, use of weapons, function of WWI helmet mostly against dirt and debris in the trench).
2nd: There is far too few reference material. The author just quotes two titles in the whole discussion, although there is quite a lot of literature at hand about this problem. One of the two titles is a book bout the development of the German Stahlhelm.
3rd: The argumentation does not follow the rules for logic. E.g. the author simply states:
"Die Autorin hält es für unwahrscheinlich, dass zweiteilige Helme, sprich Hinter- hauptkalotte und Maske, im Kampf eingesetzt wurden." This might be called "Argument of personal incredulity"; there are several more such examples. I would expect such things only in the field of theology.
4th: It lacks a critical discussion of the literature used. She refers to the results of Junkelmann´s publication about mask helmets, however Junkelmann´s work as such is no academic work, as he himself provides no reference about what material his replicas were made of exactly, what criteria were chosen for production, how close they are to the originals, what the exact circumstances of his tests were, etc. You just have to rely on the statements made by Junkelmann, assuming that everything he did was beyond doubt correct. This is, of course, not the case, as has been stated by many reviewers and peers again and again.
Why?
1st: A historical comparison is difficult to make. There is a specified method for that, the author seems to be unaware of. Generally a historical comparison is useless in the most cases. See the chapter on method in:
W. Riess, Apuleius und die Räuber. Ein Beitrag zur historischen Kriminalitätsforschung (Heidelberger Althistorische Beiträge und Epigraphische Studien vol. 35), Stuttgart 2001.
So here we get an argument stating that the criteria for development of WWI steel helmets can be compared to the criteria of Roman helmets. This is simply not correct, however, for a variety of reasons (cultural, use of weapons, function of WWI helmet mostly against dirt and debris in the trench).
2nd: There is far too few reference material. The author just quotes two titles in the whole discussion, although there is quite a lot of literature at hand about this problem. One of the two titles is a book bout the development of the German Stahlhelm.
3rd: The argumentation does not follow the rules for logic. E.g. the author simply states:
"Die Autorin hält es für unwahrscheinlich, dass zweiteilige Helme, sprich Hinter- hauptkalotte und Maske, im Kampf eingesetzt wurden." This might be called "Argument of personal incredulity"; there are several more such examples. I would expect such things only in the field of theology.
4th: It lacks a critical discussion of the literature used. She refers to the results of Junkelmann´s publication about mask helmets, however Junkelmann´s work as such is no academic work, as he himself provides no reference about what material his replicas were made of exactly, what criteria were chosen for production, how close they are to the originals, what the exact circumstances of his tests were, etc. You just have to rely on the statements made by Junkelmann, assuming that everything he did was beyond doubt correct. This is, of course, not the case, as has been stated by many reviewers and peers again and again.
Christian K.
No reconstruendum => No reconstruction.
Ut desint vires, tamen est laudanda voluntas.
No reconstruendum => No reconstruction.
Ut desint vires, tamen est laudanda voluntas.
