03-15-2005, 03:36 AM
Goffredo wrote:<br>
<br>
Quote:</em></strong><hr>I never said re-enactment doesn't give a valid measure.<br>
<hr><br>
<br>
Okay, but that's something that others have said in these discussions many times in the past. I still just don't understand this 'but you aren't really in danger of being killed, so it's invalid' objection. So what? We're still doing everything we can not to be hit in the head, chest, back etc . Or not be hit anywhere at all.<br>
<br>
If anything, I'm always amazed at how remarkably <em>timid</em> re-enactors are in combat, not remarkably foolhardy. This objection seems to be based on an (armchair) assumption that re-enactors would be more foolhardy than real fighters, but I personally doubt that this is the case - quite the opposite. Modern people fighting for a hobby are rather wimpy about even a small amount of pain.<br>
<br>
Ever seen a group of people playing paintball for the first time? You'd think they'd charge into the game screaming and blazing away like Rambo. After all - it's not as though they are <em>really</em> going to get killed and the worst thing that can happen is they'll get stung a bit by a gel ball filled with paint. But do they? No - they cower behind trees, crawl in the dust and do anything they can to stay away from the nasty, stinging paintballs.<br>
<br>
See what I mean?<br>
<br>
Quote:</em></strong><hr>Between accurate and wrong there are shades of grey.<br>
Indeed I wrote of 'bias' and I do believe I wasn't aggressive about it; e.g. no sarcasm, just a lazy armchair thought. Aware I suffer biases too having never participated in a<br>
'real re-enactment'.<hr><br>
<br>
I didn't think you were being aggressive. But I've come across this 'objection' a lot in the past and it just doesn't make any sense.<br>
<br>
Quote:</em></strong><hr>I like the idea of a wedge! Indeed I acknowledge it could work. But to claim that it always worked makes me ask: why wasn't it used all the time?<hr><br>
<br>
Because it has its limits. A smallish wedge can go through two or even three lines like a hot knife through butter. But the deeper the defending formation the larger the wedge needs to be effective. And the larger the wedge the greater the training and discipline needed to hold it packed together tightly enough to be effective. <p><p>
<b>Tim O'Neill / Thiudareiks Flavius / Thiudareiks Gunthigg</b>
<p>
<a href="http://p066.ezboard.com/bthedavincicodefactandfiction"><img src="http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-1/935133/DVCBanner.jpg" width=588 height=135></p><i></i>
<br>
Quote:</em></strong><hr>I never said re-enactment doesn't give a valid measure.<br>
<hr><br>
<br>
Okay, but that's something that others have said in these discussions many times in the past. I still just don't understand this 'but you aren't really in danger of being killed, so it's invalid' objection. So what? We're still doing everything we can not to be hit in the head, chest, back etc . Or not be hit anywhere at all.<br>
<br>
If anything, I'm always amazed at how remarkably <em>timid</em> re-enactors are in combat, not remarkably foolhardy. This objection seems to be based on an (armchair) assumption that re-enactors would be more foolhardy than real fighters, but I personally doubt that this is the case - quite the opposite. Modern people fighting for a hobby are rather wimpy about even a small amount of pain.<br>
<br>
Ever seen a group of people playing paintball for the first time? You'd think they'd charge into the game screaming and blazing away like Rambo. After all - it's not as though they are <em>really</em> going to get killed and the worst thing that can happen is they'll get stung a bit by a gel ball filled with paint. But do they? No - they cower behind trees, crawl in the dust and do anything they can to stay away from the nasty, stinging paintballs.<br>
<br>
See what I mean?<br>
<br>
Quote:</em></strong><hr>Between accurate and wrong there are shades of grey.<br>
Indeed I wrote of 'bias' and I do believe I wasn't aggressive about it; e.g. no sarcasm, just a lazy armchair thought. Aware I suffer biases too having never participated in a<br>
'real re-enactment'.<hr><br>
<br>
I didn't think you were being aggressive. But I've come across this 'objection' a lot in the past and it just doesn't make any sense.<br>
<br>
Quote:</em></strong><hr>I like the idea of a wedge! Indeed I acknowledge it could work. But to claim that it always worked makes me ask: why wasn't it used all the time?<hr><br>
<br>
Because it has its limits. A smallish wedge can go through two or even three lines like a hot knife through butter. But the deeper the defending formation the larger the wedge needs to be effective. And the larger the wedge the greater the training and discipline needed to hold it packed together tightly enough to be effective. <p><p>
<b>Tim O'Neill / Thiudareiks Flavius / Thiudareiks Gunthigg</b>
<p>
<a href="http://p066.ezboard.com/bthedavincicodefactandfiction"><img src="http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-1/935133/DVCBanner.jpg" width=588 height=135></p><i></i>
Tim ONeill / Thiudareiks Flavius /Thiudareiks Gunthigg
HISTORY FOR ATHEISTS - New Atheists Getting History Wrong
HISTORY FOR ATHEISTS - New Atheists Getting History Wrong
