Misconceptions We Learn in School.

Woah give credit where its due! "I'm in high school and I've read a college-level author. Don't tell me I'm wrong."

Never said I was in high school. I'm in college now - took the AP exam 2.5 years ago. Only got a 4, but that's because I'm terrible at writing essays; every AP exam I've taken that doesn't have an essay component I've gotten 5 on. Got an A for the class.

I wouldn't put too much stock in what current people say, given that American history these days is pretty much nothing more than "USA #1! Everyone else sucks!".

As for citations, I can't give you exact anything other than the book given that I don't have the USB drive with my notes with me right now, but here's the book: http://www.amazon.com/National-Expe...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1284659355&sr=8-1
 
Never said I was in high school. I'm in college now - took the AP exam 2.5 years ago. Only got a 4, but that's because I'm terrible at writing essays; every AP exam I've taken that doesn't have an essay component I've gotten 5 on. Got an A for the class.

I wouldn't put too much stock in what current people say, given that American history these days is pretty much nothing more than "USA #1! Everyone else sucks!".

As for citations, I can't give you exact anything other than the book given that I don't have the USB drive with my notes with me right now, but here's the book: http://www.amazon.com/National-Expe...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1284659355&sr=8-1

We read Howard Zinn in our AP class, alongside more traditional and popular materials. I wouldn't say that we got a "USA is always #1!" experience.
 
In the unlikely event that anyone's interested in my college sword, I found this article which sheds light on it. Apparently a Renaissance-era weapon, measuring 163 cm and weighing 3.4 kg according to this site (which if you read after the first link, you can discern the tone of bitterness in its description of where the original sword is). I don't know what that is in imperial.

I can confirm that the proposed duel mentioned in the article did not take place, disappointingly, since I was still there at the time and I'm sure it's the sort of thing you'd remember...
 
I wouldn't put too much stock in what current people say, given that American history these days is pretty much nothing more than "USA #1! Everyone else sucks!".

I've never encountered that before; and furthermore, I don't see how not putting much stock in what "current people say" supports your opinion on the causes of the American Civil War in any manner.

Yes, because intervention in the economy is very clearly a purely leftist idea or practice.

... yes? The scale for American politics in which economic alignment is determined goes from pure central planning on the left to pure laissez-faire on the right.
 
I've never encountered that before; and furthermore, I don't see how not putting much stock in what "current people say" supports your opinion on the causes of the American Civil War in any manner.

Given that what I leaned prior to AP US History was "US#1" propaganda and that the common knowledge of the civil war says it was all about slavery, so either there is no myth to bust, or it was more than just slavery.
 
Given that what I leaned prior to AP US History was "US#1" propaganda and that the common knowledge of the civil war says it was all about slavery, so either there is no myth to bust, or it was more than just slavery.

Your argument is essentially "unless what I've learned is wrong, there is no reason to think I'm not right."
 
Your argument is essentially "unless what I've learned is wrong, there is no reason to think I'm not right."

I fail to see how anyone can think in any other way. If what you think is based on what you learned, the only way for what you think to be wrong is for what you leaned to be wrong.
 
I fail to see how anyone can think in any other way. If what you think is based on what you learned, the only way for what you think to be wrong is for what you leaned to be wrong.

Sure, but that's not a convincing argument in favor of your position. Would you care to provide evidence or citations beyond a high school textbook?
 
The National Experience is not a high school textbook. It's been used for decades at the college level (at least that's what the course description said; could easily have been exaggerated). Actually they might not even use that textbook any more - all the authors are dead, so they had to use handouts to cover events after the first gulf war.
 
Do you see how you're completely dodging the point in favor of irrelevant details?
 
Even if it's an outlier with 213cm length and 7kg weight?
That sounds like a ceremonial sword (gold is heavy y'know)
I think it depends on the era - you dont always want one which is perfectly balanced. A long sword that could chop through mail and leather was heavy towards the working end. Falchion is an extreme example of an unbalanced sword.



where do you get this info civ king >? Wallace's sword was 6 lbs as someone already noted. Do you think this sword, belonging to el cid, was only 4 lbs ? Its as wide as a gladius over much of its length and almost three times as long. In order to be balanced that pommel would have to be very heavy.
Espada_Tizona.jpg
Considering William's sword lacks a fuller I'm going with a processional sword so that weight is believable


From information on Tizona it is classified as a two handed sword and accounting for why it weighs 2.4kg
 
I don't consider ANY detail irrelevant. Actually I'm kinda insulted that you would accuse my school of using a high school textbook for an AP course!

It's irrelevant to the matter at hand, which is that you've provided no arguments or primary sources in favor of your position.
 
I don't consider ANY detail irrelevant. Actually I'm kinda insulted that you would accuse my school of using a high school textbook for an AP course!

The point, if I am following this correctly, is you are simply reciting an interpretation you came across without looking for other evidence to support it. The issue is that you may not be treating the "first" source you have encountered critically.

Edit: Crosspost.
 
I'm going to give a very abbreviated summary of events leading up to the American Civil War.

Generally speaking, slavery was not considered a monumental issue amongst antebellum Americans prior to the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which shattered the previous status quo established by the Missouri Compromise and Compromise of 1850. The efforts of "fire eaters," especially Senator David Rice Atchison, resulted in the new doctrine of "popular sovereignty" to determine whether new states would allow slavery or not. This caused a civil war in Kansas and resulted in the Whig Party being disestablished in favor of the Republicans, whose primary platform issue was the long-term elimination of slavery by not admitting new slave states. Southerners associated this with abolitionism, and thus seceded from the Union when Abraham Lincoln won the election of 1860.

It's a myth that the South was losing influence with the federal government. The South had dictated the tariff policy of the nation since the repeal of the Tariff of 1828; the South had dictated the federal policy towards African-Americans in the Supreme Court; the South had dictated the admission of slave states after the Mexican-American War and in the Louisiana territories; et al. And now for the reasons why the American Civil War was entirely about slavery:

Argument #1: The "Cornerstone Speech" given by Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens on March 21, 1861, contained this passage: "The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution — African slavery as it exists amongst us — the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the 'rock upon which the old Union would split.' He was right."

Argument #2: From the South Carolina Declaration of Causes of Secession (1860): "We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection. For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that “Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,” and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction."
 
From information on Tizona it is classified as a two handed sword and accounting for why it weighs 2.4kg

you obviously have some knowledge of this topic, but that looks to me like a one handed pommel, and from what I can gather, the sword was wielded in that fashion when el cid won it in a duel.
 
When considering what muscle powered weapons may weigh, look at the biggest modern tools that a man can use for a long workday. And then keep in mind that a man fighting for his life has to move far faster and with much greater range of motion and dexterity. And then that most of those men were smaller than most modern laborers.

And them go to a museum and note the extent to which the weapons were clearly built to minimize weight.

aaarmor13.jpg
 
yeah you needed something handy, not heavy. I just haven't hefted enough swords to judge their weight. a good pistol is over 4 lbs, extra weight isn't good unless it gives you strength where you need it.

Tizona does look like it would be easier to wield two handed, but maybe on horseback....:eek:
 
you obviously have some knowledge of this topic, but that looks to me like a one handed pommel, and from what I can gather, the sword was wielded in that fashion when el cid won it in a duel.

It definitely looks like it has a ricasso which is a blunted area just above cross-guard so you can grip it allowing better control
When considering what muscle powered weapons may weigh, look at the biggest modern tools that a man can use for a long workday. And then keep in mind that a man fighting for his life has to move far faster and with much greater range of motion and dexterity. And then that most of those men were smaller than most modern laborers.

And them go to a museum and note the extent to which the weapons were clearly built to minimize weight.

...
yeah, a fuller is frequently used to lighten it without compromising strength like an I-beam
yeah you needed something handy, not heavy. I just haven't hefted enough swords to judge their weight. a good pistol is over 4 lbs, extra weight isn't good unless it gives you strength where you need it.

Tizona does look like it would be easier to wield two handed, but maybe on horseback....:eek:

A pistol has to withstand the tremendous force of the gasses generated by a shot

It could have been choked up allowing greater precision
 
Back
Top Bottom