Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

Jon Cleaves wrote:
> Well, I am not convinced...lol
>
> New scholarship does not necessarily equal good scholarship. A GREAT
> deal of what is being written today is revisionist crap. There is no
> way Warrior will jump around and change rules with every new PhD
> dissertation. It is a core element of our philosophy.
>
> We *may* add, as an option, something truly convincing to a list, but
> the core rules aren't changing.

What exactly is the standard you measure sources on? Does the
groundbreaking (no pun intended) work of battlefield archaeologists
pass the bar, or is it just revisionist crap? You also seem to
consider one of the rare primary sources that describe how people
actually fought as something to just laugh off, so what sources are
worthy of your consideration?

Have fun
Cole

[joncleaves]

Whoa, Cole, I didn't laugh off anything. Nor was I attacking any particular
piece of research by you or anyone else.
I do feel there is way too much revision in today's history, typically designed
to separate the writer from perfectly acceptable conclusions made in the past
but that he needs to 'debunk' in order to make a name for himself.
But I have always said that we will look at anything someone wants to send us.
While we have no plans to change the rules, we might, if the right threshhold is
reached, add an option or an upgrade to an existing list. If you have something
like that, you are free to send it to us and always have been.

Jon



-----Original Message-----
From: Nicholas Cioran <ncioran@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 18:54:02 -0000
Subject: [WarriorRules] Standards for Scholarship ( was Competetive Lists)




Jon Cleaves wrote:
> Well, I am not convinced...lol
>
> New scholarship does not necessarily equal good scholarship. A GREAT
> deal of what is being written today is revisionist crap. There is no
> way Warrior will jump around and change rules with every new PhD
> dissertation. It is a core element of our philosophy.
>
> We *may* add, as an option, something truly convincing to a list, but
> the core rules aren't changing.

What exactly is the standard you measure sources on? Does the
groundbreaking (no pun intended) work of battlefield archaeologists
pass the bar, or is it just revisionist crap? You also seem to
consider one of the rare primary sources that describe how people
actually fought as something to just laugh off, so what sources are
worthy of your consideration?

Have fun
Cole






Yahoo! Groups Links






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]