Find the errors and laugh

Users who are viewing this thread

Also knights, I believe, did kill dragons back in the early middle ages.  These were dragons left over from the era of the dinosaur.
Wahahahahahaaaa!

The holes that are narrower were turned toward the sound of arrows to prevent them from going through the larger breathing holes on the right side of the helmet.
Probably wrong. Not that I'm an expert.
 
This person is very poorly misguided.  His site seems kind of unprofessional. 

This dragon is engraved on the handle of my sword.The dragon was a symbol of Satan.  The knight's sword was a symbol of the Word of God which is called the Sword of the Spirit in Ephesians 6....This is the pommel of the sword.  It is hollow.  The nut on the end is removed when the knight receives his sword and into it he places a lock of his lady's hair and a small scroll on which he has written the verse from Ephesians 6 about the armor of God.

This person even contradicted themselves here, saying that the dragon was a symbol of Satan and then saying that the pommel was to recieve a verse from the word of God. So isnt he saying that his sword is worthless?
 
No offense, but this isn't really proper.

Yeah the guy has a lot of misconceptions, but so has almost everyone on this forum, including myself. If I justw wanted an ego boost I could go around these forums all day mocking folks misconceptions. Christian Fletcher BTW is a most excellent armourer even though he no longer takes orders for harness preferring to work on sword hardware and scabbards.
 
Someone can be skilled and ignorant at the same time: he's the one who put up a website full of nonsense.
 
Sure the guy might be a great sword and scabbard maker, its just odd that he would include the symbol of the devil in an area where the word of God was supposed to protect the sword user :lol:.

However, this is not Christian Fletcher writing the page, it is someone who had armor done for them by Christian Fletcher.

The armor was constructed by Christian Fletcher to custom fit my body and is made of medieval steel or mild steel and brass.
 
Pan Godlewska said:
This person is very poorly misguided.  His site seems kind of unprofessional. 

This dragon is engraved on the handle of my sword.The dragon was a symbol of Satan.  The knight's sword was a symbol of the Word of God which is called the Sword of the Spirit in Ephesians 6....This is the pommel of the sword.  It is hollow.  The nut on the end is removed when the knight receives his sword and into it he places a lock of his lady's hair and a small scroll on which he has written the verse from Ephesians 6 about the armor of God.

This person even contradicted themselves here, saying that the dragon was a symbol of Satan and then saying that the pommel was to recieve a verse from the word of God. So isnt he saying that his sword is worthless?
Actually, there is no contradiction here. Devils and demons have always been a popular theme, and the devil's face is often seen adorning cod-pieces, for example. Why, you see devils, demons, and sometimes leud women (Sheela Na Gig) adorning cathedrals, in the form of gargoyles. Whenever devils were portrayed, it was never in the modern sense of "I'm so bad, hail to Satan baby" -- it was just a motif. It wasn't until much later that they got really sanctimonious about the devil, anyway, when they started speaking of THE Devil and fearing magic.
 
I don't really think this belongs here either -- sure the guy is wrong on a lot of things, but how is this adding to any sort of historical discussion? Now if it was asked specifically if he was right and what the possible reasons yadda yadda for teh dragon symbol was, then I think it'd be fine here.  But wrong forum.  Don't know where it would belong, but I don't think ehre in the Sage's Guild.
 
Kissaki said:
Actually, there is no contradiction here. Devils and demons have always been a popular theme, and the devil's face is often seen adorning cod-pieces, for example. Why, you see devils, demons, and sometimes leud women (Sheela Na Gig) adorning cathedrals, in the form of gargoyles. Whenever devils were portrayed, it was never in the modern sense of "I'm so bad, hail to Satan baby" -- it was just a motif. It wasn't until much later that they got really sanctimonious about the devil, anyway, when they started speaking of THE Devil and fearing magic.

Thanks, i didnt know that. 
 
though it can be debated that a dragon was not a sign of 'the' devil, since the more ancient meaning was power, strength, etc. Just as lions were not thought of as a 'noble' animal, but just as a strong one, which is why it adorns so many emblems


the only actual error that can not be described as personal believes is the "hearing" of an arrow. In a battle, fighting, with a helmet on, it is quite impossible to hear an arrow, even a badly fletched one (which makes more noise). Only signal arrows (screaming arrows) could perhaps be heard
 
I don't know about that hearing thing -- i think it might depend on how close the arrow is. gratned, I have never been in a battle so this is just conjecture. One hears teh whistle of bullets as they go by, and can feel/hear a ball or other objects as they fly by teh head.  Granted these all have varying velocities and shapes that would make teh physics very different from that of an arrow, but I don't know that it'd be impossible to hear one as it flies by your head.
 
i did not want to imply that it is impossible to hear them fly by. i wanted to say that it was impossible or very unlikely that anyone would be able to turn their head in time
 
Ezias said:
I don't know about that hearing thing -- i think it might depend on how close the arrow is. gratned, I have never been in a battle so this is just conjecture. One hears teh whistle of bullets as they go by, and can feel/hear a ball or other objects as they fly by teh head.  Granted these all have varying velocities and shapes that would make teh physics very different from that of an arrow, but I don't know that it'd be impossible to hear one as it flies by your head.
But you don't hear a ball before it flies by. In the case of artillery you do hear the shells before they land -- unless the shell is coming directly at you (the shell travelling faster than the speed of sound, it will reach you before the sound does). In the case of arrows, obviously arrows are not supersonic and you  might well hear them before they hit you. I have no idea, however, as I've never been shot at with an arrow before. But I can't imagine that the sound would be loud enough to hear through both the battle and the helmet -- until it was too late to do anything about it, anyway. I believe you'd hear a projectile whizzing close by your head even with a solid, padded helmet covering your entire head, but I don't see how that matters in any way.
 
In fact you do.

I found it much more disquieting to be shot at with archery than with bullets - you can see the arrows coming - they make unpleasant noises and you can see them when they pass close to you, as one did under the brim of my helmet.
From:
Observations on archery and it's effect on armour

In any case, I don't understand bashing the knight for hire, unless trying to make oneself feel superior and informed by mocking others is a good pasttime.
 
Kissaki said:
Ezias said:
I don't know about that hearing thing -- i think it might depend on how close the arrow is. gratned, I have never been in a battle so this is just conjecture. One hears teh whistle of bullets as they go by, and can feel/hear a ball or other objects as they fly by teh head.  Granted these all have varying velocities and shapes that would make teh physics very different from that of an arrow, but I don't know that it'd be impossible to hear one as it flies by your head.
But you don't hear a ball before it flies by. In the case of artillery you do hear the shells before they land -- unless the shell is coming directly at you (the shell travelling faster than the speed of sound, it will reach you before the sound does). In the case of arrows, obviously arrows are not supersonic and you  might well hear them before they hit you. I have no idea, however, as I've never been shot at with an arrow before. But I can't imagine that the sound would be loud enough to hear through both the battle and the helmet -- until it was too late to do anything about it, anyway. I believe you'd hear a projectile whizzing close by your head even with a solid, padded helmet covering your entire head, but I don't see how that matters in any way.

I appreciate your pointing out that a ball isnt heard before it flies by kissaki -- though I hadn't been thinking about hearing it to dodge it, merely the ability to hear it. I also was assuming that since the said target was under fire that he wasn't into teh scrum/melee yet, so would be more likely to hear an arrow as it whizzes by.
mercury00 said:
In any case, I don't understand bashing the knight for hire, unless trying to make oneself feel superior and informed by mocking others is a good pasttime.

It isn't ..  at least not IMO
 
Granted, I may have been wrong to bash him so, but seriously, I find it terribly wrong, morally, to hire oneself to teach young, impressionable students, and teach them things that can in no way be interpreted as fact.
 
James said:
Granted, I may have been wrong to bash him so, but seriously, I find it terribly wrong, morally, to hire oneself to teach young, impressionable students, and teach them things that can in no way be interpreted as fact.

There goes 90% of all public educators....  :smile:

This guy is a wealth of accurate info compared to my history Prof who has a doctorate in history from UCLA.
 
brasidus said:
James said:
Granted, I may have been wrong to bash him so, but seriously, I find it terribly wrong, morally, to hire oneself to teach young, impressionable students, and teach them things that can in no way be interpreted as fact.

There goes 90% of all public educators....  :smile:

This guy is a wealth of accurate info compared to my history Prof who has a doctorate in history from UCLA.

not everyone can be as wonderful as you brasidus :razz:
 
Dude,
This guy is published, and he said that one of his main areas of interest were the Anabaptists and that they did not believe in baptism.

Ana=re

Anti+against

The the most cursory study should tell anyone that the Anabaptists were called such because they believed that only peopl who of thier own volition called themselves Christians should be baptised, and since most people in that era were baptised as infants that made them 'Re" baptisers.

He also taught that a man could not get back up if he fell down in his 200 lbs suit of plate and knights had to be hoisted onto thier horses.  :roll:

Basic, basic, basic study.

I give this man no slack, he paid thousands of dollars and invested hundred of hours to get his degree, and then made teaching his vocation. The rest of us though are amatures and enthusiasts, and as such we should look at the abovementioned professor as a lesson in humility realising that if he falls into such errors nad gets paid we should be gracious in hour judgement of others like ourselves realizing that we too most likely have some such embarrasing preconception or interpretation.
 
Back
Top Bottom