PlaymoFriends
General => What is this??? => Topic started by: Pyrrhus on May 08, 2008, 19:33:39
-
I want to know if somebody knows the number of the old, curve saber, and if there is any recent set where it is present (I ould like it not to be discontinued). Much nicer to me than the most recent straight saber with wide guard.
I´m afraid it was discontinued, it is found in recent Antex pirate sets, but chromed.
-
I'm sure I bought some of those in the past two years and may have some spare. I'll check.
-
Thank you very much for answering, Playmofire :wow:, if you have some and are interested in selling them I can deposit in the bank account you say me.
-
Hello, Pyrrhus ... :wave:
I want to know if somebody knows the number of the old, curve saber, and if there is any recent set where it is present (I would like it not to be discontinued). Much nicer to me than the most recent straight saber with wide guard.
The following part numbers are from Cap'n Henry and Tiermann who were kind enough to provide Heather with the information so that she could include it in her fantastic PlaymoDB (http://www.playmodb.org/) !!!
All the best,
Richard
see attachments
-
I've had a check on my spares box, Pyrrhus, but I'm sorry to say that I no longer have any. I used to have quite a quantity of pirate spares, including these sabres, but I've been getting rid of them in recent months. Sorry to disappoint you :( however, it's pretty certain that they are still available from DS.
-
Thank you very much, Richard and Playmofire!!
No problem Playmofire, I thank you for the courtesy and preoccupation however. :)
It seems like the sabers can be bought elsewhere... a little question... is it saber- or sabre? or does it vary geographically?
Richard, thank you very much, I suppose these different numbers may refer to the non-chromed, gold-chromed and silver-chromed varieties of the old curve sabre. :wow:
-
Hello, Pyrrhus ...
Richard, thank you very much, I suppose these different numbers may refer to the non-chromed, gold-chromed and silver-chromed varieties of the old curve sabre. :wow:
If you go to Heather's PlaymoDB (http://www.playmodb.org/), you can see what sets they came from.
BTW, "saber" and "sabre" are both correct. However, Heather has them listed under "sword" ... ;D
All the best,
Richard
-
To be precise, I called swords with D-shaped handles "Sword, cutlass-type", and curved weapons with with cross-hilts, "Sword, saber (curved)". PlaymoDB Parts Containing "sword" (http://playmodb.org/cgi-bin/textsearch.pl?text=sword&sortby=partnum&pics=on) will show them all (and a few other things with "sword" in the name). Completely arbitrarily out of my head, to the tizzy of weapons experts everywhere :) I do try to choose names that are useful to search on, hence the inclusion of "sword" in both.
I was surprised to notice that I only have 114 handheld weapons on file, in about 60 different shapes. It certainly seems like there ought to be more, when I look in my parts bags!
-
Hello, Heather ... :wave:
Completely arbitrarily out of my head, to the tizzy of weapons experts everywhere :) I do try to choose names that are useful to search on ...
Please be assured that I would NEVER ever criticize your choice of names for parts that you have cataloged in your wonderful PlaymoDB (http://www.playmodb.org/) ... I can't even imagine trying to come up with appropriate labels for just about any or ALL of the parts that you have listed.
Heather, you continue to do an incredible job of providing our Playmobil community with one of the most useful tools that we could possibly wish for. Thank you!
All the best,
Richard
Edit: Ooops ... forgot to "bold" Heather's name ... :-[
-
Thanks Richard! If something is uselessly inaccurate, don't hesitate to let me know. Ideally I try for a balance of accuracy, descriptiveness, plain English suitable for the auto-translators (I get quite a few hits through Babelfish and the like!) and searchability, but many or all of those often get ditched in the interest of just getting the darn thing done. I do go through spates of fixing and adjusting. There are still several hundred parts with German names imported from playmobil.de, for heaven's sake... I'll get to them by and by.
One set at a time, that's how it goes. All offers of help gratefully accepted.
-
Ideally I try for a balance of accuracy, descriptiveness, plain English suitable for the auto-translators (I get quite a few hits through Babelfish and the like!) and searchability, but many or all of those often get ditched in the interest of just getting the darn thing done.
As a student of (old) Latin, and English ... & a bit of Italian ... And, recently, a bit of German (because of Playmobil, all right, but also due to some experiments in my own literature ... and, well, this last part allows me to say that not so recently ...) ... (Although I never intended to actually learn German, until now -- & still don't, 'cause I still have to go more seriously into Czech ...), I can say that the Babelfish & the like is so awkward that, unless because of literary purpose, maybe you shouldn't worry much about it ... Translations will go as they may. By the way, your work is great, there, on the db :)
Gus
:wave:
-
BTW, "saber" and "sabre" are both correct.
Which made me think of sabertooth tiger (although we aren't playing the "Freudian Word Association game" here, exactly, but down there in the pfz ;) because the cat's name is very proper ... One could quite customize a prehistoric cat like that with this kind of saber, and a playmotiger ... :)
Only an idea that ocurred me--
-
Hi Gustavo, sorry by not passing you what I promised... :-[ I would do in next days...
With respect to the sabertooths, it should be good, but there are two problems:
-the Playmobil sabers are generally silver or gold, unlike teeth.
-the edged border in the felid's tooth was the concave one, while those of sabers is mostly the convex one.
However, this last problem may be solved by using a mutilated scythe blade (there must be someone, I think, in the old Playmobil Medieval series; I think that scythe was also whitish, thus conforming good to the tooth color).
-
Hi Gustavo, sorry by not passing you what I promised... :-[ I would do in next days...
Never mind ... Make it when you can, and we will all be happy ;)
With respect to the sabertooths, it should be good, but there are two problems:
-the Playmobil sabers are generally silver or gold, unlike teeth.
-the edged border in the felid's tooth was the concave one, while those of sabers is mostly the convex one.
:hmm:
~ Concerning the first problem, it's just that I remembered that some of my old ones lost their silver painting, and became completely discoloured, just like bone (or teeth) colour ...
~ Concerning the second, it would have to be the half part of the blade; we'd have to cut the blade, in about an inch. Anyway, I'm not sure I quite understood your concave/convex explaination 8} ... if you do it in Spanish, maybe I will manage to understand, -- & maybe not ::) ;D
G.--
:)
-
Hi Gus, yes, perhaps it was badly explained. True, many saber are white under the chromings.
The saber blade has two main borders, one dull, the other edged, as a knife. As the saber is curved, necessarily there must be one concave and other convex.
Two curved blades are the saber and the scythe. In the saber, the border bearing a cutting edge is the convex, the concave being dull, while in the scythe, the reverse is the case. I said that the cutting edge was the concave in the scythe, while the reverse is truth for the saber.
The sabertooth's tooth is slightly compressed from side to side (never to the degree of a saber or scythe), and as it is curved, it has also one concave and one convex borders (posterior and anterior respectively). The posterior border (concave) is the most acute and cutting, and the cutting edge ocuppies it nearly entirely (only the distalmost portion of the convex anterior border bears a cutting edge, the rest is dull).
So, the sabertooth tooth is most similar to the scythe in that the blade border that cuts the better is the concave, opposite to the condition in the saber.
-
The saber blade has two main borders, one dull, the other edged, as a knife. As the saber is curved, necessarily there must be one concave and other convex.
Two curved blades are the saber and the scythe. In the saber, the border bearing a cutting edge is the convex, the concave being dull, while in the scythe, the reverse is the case. I said that the cutting edge was the concave in the scythe, while the reverse is truth for the saber.
The sabertooth's tooth is slightly compressed from side to side (never to the degree of a saber or scythe), and as it is curved, it has also one concave and one convex borders (posterior and anterior respectively). The posterior border (concave) is the most acute and cutting, and the cutting edge ocuppies it nearly entirely (only the distalmost portion of the convex anterior border bears a cutting edge, the rest is dull).
So, the sabertooth tooth is most similar to the scythe in that the blade border that cuts the better is the concave, opposite to the condition in the saber.
Oh, I get your point 8} ... But mate: It's playmobil ... It isn't sharp at all! ::) :P lol!
G.--
8-)
-
I'm sorry by being somewhat boring and argument-belligerant, these are really things I try not to do, but I have to differ...
The cutting border in the old curve saber (30 06 0720) is much more acute than the other border, which is much dull and, if the word fits for an edge, "blunt". Indeed, it is the most acutely edged sword in the Playmobil repertory, as far as I know, as all other swords I have, for example, the new straight saber (30 06 0710), the medieval swords 30 07 6410,
30 07 6420, and 30 24 7480 (as well as the sword your avatar is using, the oldest model I remember, whose name I do not have), the Roman gladius (30 20 4560) and the indeterminate scimitar/falchion (30 21 0920), have dull cutting edges.
That made of it the best sword of Playmobil for me, the one which I miss the most. Here it is the link Richard gave me, with many of these numbers: http://www.playmodb.org/cgi-bin/showpart.pl?partnum=30+06+0720
-
I'm sorry by being somewhat boring and argument-belligerant, these are really things I try not to do, but I have to differ...
Argument-belligerant, no doubt.
You aren't boring ... You're funny. 8-) We're having fun ...
It's maybe the thinniest Playmobil blade, no doubt ... But I don't remember it having the front part sharper than the back ... (Although, no doubt, an original, in which the playmoone was based, would have.) It was very ... flat, but round ... quite oval, in a cut.
(Different from the sword of the moors below, that I remember to be (almost) triangular in shape, if cut ...)
-
;D ;D thanks for the understanding, Gus.
Well, thus I would differ again :0. All sabers and the "scimitar" you show there have a border thicker than the other (this latter being the cutting one). The blade of the old curve saber (30 06 0720) is not so thin to me when compared to other swords (but the cutting edge is), although I once had a Troll old saber and I remember it may be somewhat thinner than the Antex saber of which I have most units.... Indeed, I think this old saber is most triangular in cross-section than both the straight saber and the "scimitar/falchion", whiose cross-section is relatively more elongate.
Another thing: I really hate >:( that "scimitar" or falchion (30 21 0920), not only by being gold-coloured (they are not of the Bronze age!! :hissyfit:), but also because I think the extremes of the guard are curved opposite the way they were curved in reality: that on the side of the convex, cutting edge, would curve towards the handle, while that on the dull side would curve towards the blade, the opposite we can see in the actual Playmobil part.
-
Well, thus I would differ again :0. All sabers and the "scimitar" you show there have a border thicker than the other (this latter being the cutting one). The blade of the old curve saber (30 06 0720) is not so thin to me when compared to other swords (but the cutting edge is), although I once had a Troll old saber and I remember it may be somewhat thinner than the Antex saber of which I have most units.... Indeed, I think this old saber is most triangular in cross-section than both the straight saber and the "scimitar/falchion", whiose cross-section is relatively more elongate.
Aw, right. If they ever do Playmobil in Brasil again, I hope it's like in the US: "Quality and Safety Tested: Made in Europe".
Another thing: I really hate >:( that "scimitar" or falchion (30 21 0920), not only by being gold-coloured (they are not of the Bronze age!! :hissyfit:), but also because I think the extremes of the guard are curved opposite the way they were curved in reality: that on the side of the convex, cutting edge, would curve towards the handle, while that on the dull side would curve towards the blade, the opposite we can see in the actual Playmobil part.
C'mon!: they're so pretty the golden scimitars ... 8-)
G.--
:)
(Is there anything worse than adults messing up with children stuff?? :lol: I used to have a lot of fun back then as a child! ... ;) )
(But I admit: I absolutely HATE the HAT of the "don Capitán", in the new pirate set 4294 ... It's so improperly adapted! / I think all of us have our annoyances, don't we? :-\ )
-
On the other hand, maybe this kind of sword was made golden because the primary idea was it to be rusty ... Remember that it first appeared in pirates sets ...
And it's interesting how it migrated to so many other uses ... (The roman gladius can perfectly be used in medieval scenarios ...)
G.--
-
Hi Gus, truly right, I also hate that bicorne in that conquistador: I would rather like a morrion with a pit for a feather for him, if he was supposed to be the capitan. And it is certain that some of us sometimes get furious when Playmobil devy from reality, we are half nerdish adults and half simply playing grown-up childs...
With respect to the Troll saber, I don't say they were of bad quality. Perhaps it was the Antex saber the wrong one (most possible, Antex tend to make many things different).
However, I always, even as kid, loved swords, and I never liked that scimitar. I think the first time it appeared was in 1990, in the pirate 3791, which carried a barrel. There are many gold swords, even a gold gladius... I suppose they were so made by disctinction instead of rustiness. Anyway, rusty or made of gold, they are not useful to fight! How can you do so with a rusty sword?? It will broke!! >:( (too childish anger on my part, hehe, I know :lol: :lol:)
-
With respect to the Troll saber, I don't say they were of bad quality. Perhaps it was the Antex saber the wrong one (most possible, Antex tend to make many things different).
Troll did't make everthing right, I assure you ... :(
I think the best solution for Playmobil wherever it goes is to bring from Geobra, like it's done in Spain. Maybe not the cheapest, though; at least not for any country outside the EU ...
... (too childish anger on my part, hehe, I know :lol: :lol:)
8-)
Hi Gus, truly right, I also hate that bicorne in that conquistador: I would rather like a morrion with a pit for a feather for him, if he was supposed to be the capitan.
(Which one is the morrion one again?
I've been paying a thought on this, and I came to a conclusion that I'd like to see the count's hat (3375 (http://www.collectobil.com/images/items/3375.jpg)) in that little don Capitán figure ... It's very proper!
G.--
-
There are many gold swords, even a gold gladius... I suppose they were so made by disctinction instead of rustiness. Anyway, rusty or made of gold, they are not useful to fight! How can you do so with a rusty sword??
It could be imagined to be painted in gold ... Maybe covered with with it ... "folheada a ouro" (how do we say this in Eng.? ...). Golden is preeeeety! :love:
G.--
:)
(http://www.collectobil.com/images/items/4551.jpg)
-
Gold is beautiful .......
-
Right, Gus, gold gives a touch of distinction on anything, and seems to be "nobiliary inspired" or something, or perhaps part of a treasure.
But you cannot use a gold cover in functional swords, you should lost the gold cover when you shapen the edge for the sword to be useful.
Sorry by not answering before, I mispelled it: it is morion in English (Spanish: morrión, and I wrote the hybrid "morrion"). It is the common "conquistador" helmet, with a vertical ridge on top. Used by most European countries in the XVI century. I have seen morions with a feather, so I think this way a morion can be used to distinguish the captain.
The count's hat you mention is also good, indeed Columbus used it, but I would rather prefer that hat on a clicky without cuirass. If you had cuirass, it means you are going to fight, and then the helmet is better than a shaggy hat.
-
The count's hat you mention is also good, indeed Columbus used it, but I would rather prefer that hat on a clicky without cuirass. If you had cuirass, it means you are going to fight, and then the helmet is better than a shaggy hat.
Right, the white figure's helmet in 3482 (http://www.collectobil.com/images/items/3482.jpg) ...
You like to fight, aye? :D
This explains you beligerant mood in arguments, too ... :lol:
Indeed, when going to fight, a helmet in the don Capitán will do him better service.
It's interesting how, for a while, helmets went out of military custom ... I think it was soon after the fire arms begin to be widely used, from the XVIIth to the XIXth centuries ... It was only on the late 1800s that the British used them in those customs of "The Man who would be King", in the cinema (with Sean Connery and Michael Cane, movie based on R. Kipling's literary work) ... And it came back to use since the WWI ... It seems that there was, for some time, a delusion that, with fire power, it made no difference to take care of the head or not. But, then, war men realized that it's never too much to protect the head, after all ... (We don't see Napoleonic soldiers in helmets ... Or musketeers; it's odd, isn't it?)
As for the gold in the swords, I give up rational arguments: it's only pretty, and that all! :P :toot:
G.--
-
Hi Gus,
Well, I indeed like some discussions. Not always can I mantain me as unbiased and cold as I should want (indeed, if the discussion endures some time, it heatens and one become a kind of lawyer only interested in winning - this time, I think, one departs from seeking truth, which I think would be our goal). I am also enemy of having unnecesary pride, as uses to occur in discussions, but it is not always easy to avoid for me. Well, that's an internal struggle of me...
In addition, just discussing on Internet one avoids being punched or something ;D ;D
Yes, I have to admit also that perhaps golden swords can be appreciated as distinctive of captains or non-fighting uniforms. It's just that I like functional swords... The others are not so well suited for my armies, but they are suited for parades.
With respect to the helmets, I heard that they were not longer used because they hardly can protect from bullets. Just two days ago I heard their reintroduction in the XX century was not to protect from bullet, what they can hardly achieve, but protecting from fragments of shells exploding around, which are not as faster as bullets.
However, the Napoleonic cavalry bore both helmets and cuirasses, I suppose the reason was because they were more likely to be engaged in body- to body combat (after all, they bore spears and sabers with them).
Good luck friend, sorry if I got somewhat obtuse, will try to avoid so if I devied too much to unnecesary pride (expect not to sound like a psychologist ???).
-
With respect to the helmets, I heard that they were not longer used because they hardly can protect from bullets. Just two days ago I heard their reintroduction in the XX century was not to protect from bullet, what they can hardly achieve, but protecting from fragments of shells exploding around, which are not as faster as bullets.
However, the Napoleonic cavalry bore both helmets and cuirasses, I suppose the reason was because they were more likely to be engaged in body- to body combat (after all, they bore spears and sabers with them).
It makes sense then, that for a while they stopped using ... And that they came back using, as well! Concerning the Napoleonic cavalry too, it makes sense that those kind of fighters should use helmets. However, in the US Civil War, where there was this kind of fight in certain occasions too, I can't remember any kind of helmets at all ... It wasn't in the fashion of the time. 8}
I indeed like some discussions. Not always can I mantain me as unbiased and cold as I should want (indeed, if the discussion endures some time, it heatens and one become a kind of lawyer only interested in winning - this time, I think, one departs from seeking truth, which I think would be our goal). I am also enemy of having unnecesary pride, as uses to occur in discussions, but it is not always easy to avoid for me. Well, that's an internal struggle of me...
In addition, just discussing on Internet one avoids being punched or something ;D ;D
It is a rare thing, someone to seek the truth, and not his own opinion's reassurance in arguments ... If you do so, and if you do it with conscience -- as you show to do --, it's a virtue with which you benefit us all! 8-)
I have to admit that, in a way, I was searching more my own opinion than the truth concerning the question proposed :-[ ... Of course it isn't at all the concern of a child, to think about truth, even in simple matters ... (Maybe only the moral iniciation that lie and deceit are damaging to those who practice them in general ways. A child who takes pleasure in Playmobil already thinks about this :) ) For a child there's only simplicity, the world is simple, so are the relationships. However, we're no children, and the exercise, I think is beneficial to us all as well ... (Uhm ... maybe not to Socrates' avatar's secret identity! :hmm: )
;D
Yes, I have to admit also that perhaps golden swords can be appreciated as distinctive of captains or non-fighting uniforms. It's just that I like functional swords... The others are not so well suited for my armies, but they are suited for parades.
Speaking as an adult willing of perfection in the toy ;) I agree with you ... Tecnically, I think this would be the only situation we could accept the use of golden swords ... & only "folheadas a ouro".
But, hey! ... Don't tell anyone I admitted it! :shhhh:
;)
Gus
-
Hehe, thank you by your words, Gus!!
Perhaps that "seeking of truth" thing is out of place here, although I think that all times we have different theories on how something is, that should be our goal. I am a scientist, that may be also the reason I use that principle as a guide (although I also have some doubts on what is the truth and objective reality, but that problem is even more out of place).
In science, I think it is applied very well something said in the debated triple-X movie "Fritz the cat" (1972): "you study to became an intellectual only interested in outsmart other intellectuals". I think it is difficult to avoid becoming a kind of lawyer: no one wants to sound like a fool.
For example, sometimes we can tend to embrace different viewpoints on what was the real explanation of an aspect of reality. I said cuirasses and helmets in Napoleon's cavalry may be due to the fact they would get more likely engaged in man- to man combat (where the armor is useful), as I admitted the armor does not ressist bullets. Then you put on doubt this idea as in the civil war there were body- to body fights but not armor.
If this discussion follows as I think, I would try to get more evidence supporting my point of view (for example, that civil war soldiers were armed with guns, so were expected mostly to fight by shooting, even when man- to man encounters occurred -bayonet being one of the few devidces for that possibility-), and you perhaps would try to look for evidence that some regiments were expected to fight mostly hand- to hand and still lacked armor (for example, cavalry regiments were the main offensive weapon was a saber). And I do not know whou would be right, as i do not know if the possibilities above, in favor or agains my hypothesis, are certain by now...
But the problem I would have is that while looking for arguments to support my hypothesis, even if I am convinced of my position, I would tend to look mostly those favouring my hypothesis, and that may make me biased, what I try to avoid. Perhaps what one has to do is not try to defend an hypothesis, which may be correct, but take distance from defending the idea (emotional distance also) and look if there is not another hypothesis that can cope all the observations. But when one is in lawyer-mode, one defends his own point, one forgets to look for the hypothesis that better fits the data, and try to fit reality in one side of a dichotomy: what I propose is true or not.
-
If this discussion follows as I think, I would try to get more evidence supporting my point of view (for example, that civil war soldiers were armed with guns, so were expected mostly to fight by shooting, even when man- to man encounters occurred -bayonet being one of the few devidces for that possibility-), and you perhaps would try to look for evidence that some regiments were expected to fight mostly hand- to hand and still lacked armor (for example, cavalry regiments were the main offensive weapon was a saber). And I do not know whou would be right, as i do not know if the possibilities above, in favor or agains my hypothesis, are certain by now...
We can't completely forget military tradition, as well, concerning clothes.
As for, bayonets, it's a way of making the already "long carabine" also a lance. And a lance is a very useful ... thing, in battlefield. We can see it even in the Vietnam war history, in certain combats. (Saw in a movie ...) No doubt it's last resource, but it's ... a last resource.
I most honestly hope I never have to make use of it. It must be a horrible and desperate thing.
Perhaps that "seeking of truth" thing is out of place here, although I think that all times we have different theories on how something is, that should be our goal. I am a scientist, that may be also the reason I use that principle as a guide (although I also have some doubts on what is the truth and objective reality, but that problem is even more out of place).
In science, I think it is applied very well something said in the debated triple-X movie "Fritz the cat" (1972): "you study to became an intellectual only interested in outsmart other intellectuals". I think it is difficult to avoid becoming a kind of lawyer: no one wants to sound like a fool.
For example, sometimes we can tend to embrace different viewpoints on what was the real explanation of an aspect of reality. I said cuirasses and helmets in Napoleon's cavalry may be due to the fact they would get more likely engaged in man- to man combat (where the armor is useful), as I admitted the armor does not ressist bullets. Then you put on doubt this idea as in the civil war there were body- to body fights but not armor.
...
But the problem I would have is that while looking for arguments to support my hypothesis, even if I am convinced of my position, I would tend to look mostly those favouring my hypothesis, and that may make me biased, what I try to avoid. Perhaps what one has to do is not try to defend an hypothesis, which may be correct, but take distance from defending the idea (emotional distance also) and look if there is not another hypothesis that can cope all the observations. But when one is in lawyer-mode, one defends his own point, one forgets to look for the hypothesis that better fits the data, and try to fit reality in one side of a dichotomy: what I propose is true or not.
I don't question truth or reality, in a way. On another way of seeing it, we experience truth, I think, by questioning it, and interacting with it.
I respect science as a good basis for me to reaching a parameter of truth. It can't be treated dogmatically as the tool to reach the truth, because scientific view evolves, so, the world was thought to be flat while the observers were in one hemisphere only, and, when new parameter of truth was needed, men used sciece to find out what to do, and find ... truth. (At least as we understand the truth of the matter generally in our time.)
That was only an already widely used and understandable example 8-)
I like the scientific way of talking about truth (& the truth), because it always begins from the basis that it can be wrong and will be accepted to be wrong whenever another better explaination arises ... "Every defended hypothesis is subject to be proved or refuted" once taught me a lawyer to whom I taught Latin.
And a scientist won't deny accepting coherently proven truth concerning one matter, no matter that it goes against his (your/my) own loved hypothesis ... Because it happens that we get inlove for our hypotheses as you glimpsed too, and it is so, because people who relly on science are very usually people of great faith, for very seldom do science lets us down.
I think only that I lost a bit of the fear I had of actually using the word truth, as long as life went on ... I believe in truth. It's true that I not always know it as I think I do ::). But I think I deal quite well with it (with not knowing the truth as I think I do). You must have realized that I tend to sound like I am always right ... And indeed I do! :P It's a great way to realize more easily that the truth isn't always at my side.
I think that scientists, in general, seek for the truth, in many ways ... (Don't you think so?)
However, I don't know if I'm a scientist. No, I actually think I am not. When they ask about my profession, I sometimes say that I am a humanist. I am not a philosopher either. In graduation I was taught Languages & Literature. As a matter of working, I've been trying to be in the book business but, by now, I'm "straying" into library service, for a few months ... I prefer commerce, it's odd :hmm:
They say that Latin has a lot to do with Logic, and that it helps thinking.
They're right! ;)
G.--
8}
-
Hi Gus,
I agree that the cuirasses can perfectly not have been used by regiments whose main goal was engagin into man- to man combat, because of clothing tradition, misjudgement, lack of knowledge of its advantages (less likely), or using the available metal to make things considered more important. With respect to the bayonets, I wrote something on them in another forum, if you are interested (http://gardenwargaming.playclicks.com/forum/index.php?topic=1099.0).
With respect to the truth, I consider truth as the factual, the way things are. My problem with facts is that what we perceive can be not factual (e.g., allucinations). That's my belief put simple. Logic for me is the way to think in order to reflect the better how nature works (for me, thus, logic is not departed from experience, but derives from it, or was constructed from it by Ancient Greeks, unlike the relatively independentist rationality of Descartes). And yes, scientists would always try to look for truth (i.e., the factual), but sometimes they look to save their own pride (a trap).
No problem you think you are right or close to the truth. A greater moral problem is defending something you know is not truth by using fallacies that confuse the critics.
Well, good luck Gus, see you later. Did you recived something of what I send you??
-
With respect to the bayonets, I wrote something on them in another forum, if you are interested (http://gardenwargaming.playclicks.com/forum/index.php?topic=1099.0).
I took a look (not to say that I already read it all 8} ). I'd like to talk about it, but weekend is coming to its end, and I still have to write stuff in my particular literatures ...
The only thing that I thought was that when European came to America, they found, in some cases, difficult moments, in fighting indians ... (It's funny ... uhm "funny", watching some battle scenes between indians and red-coats in "The Last of the Mohicans" (the version of the '90s, with Daniel Day-Lewis & Madeleine Stowe ...), because it shows moments when the English were shouting positions, it was useful to indians to hide, and wait them shoot, and, when they were reloading, the indians attacked, and killed them all.
It must have worked quite well for small troops. In the end, we know that firepower and European warrior discipline and battle style were enough to put end to indians, but it is interesting to see how different battle styles made some rules of battle to be completely disrespected, and it would cause some distress to European armies (...)
But all this, at least in my case, is very ... very, too much & only academic. I'm not enough curious in details of battles. It's very interesting reading, though :)
As for the weekend to be ending, it's very significant to all who already noticed that I write here more on weekends. In fact, I tend not to write at all during the week. This helps me because, as it can also be noted, ... I spend not little time, when I come in! :hmm: ... :yup:
Maybe my signature should be "@ Your Service ... Mainly on Weekends!". I thought about changing it, but I decided not to do it ... ::)
With respect to the truth, I consider truth as the factual, the way things are. My problem with facts is that what we perceive can be not factual (e.g., allucinations). That's my belief put simple. Logic for me is the way to think in order to reflect the better how nature works (for me, thus, logic is not departed from experience, but derives from it, or was constructed from it by Ancient Greeks, unlike the relatively independentist rationality of Descartes). And yes, scientists would always try to look for truth (i.e., the factual), but sometimes they look to save their own pride (a trap).
No problem you think you are right or close to the truth. A greater moral problem is defending something you know is not truth by using fallacies that confuse the critics.
I think we reached unquestionable agreement,
concerning these matters!
We should be proud ... 8-)
:lol:
Well, good luck Gus, see you later. Did you recived something of what I send you??
I'll take a look in the Yahoo ... All my stuff have been redirected there. (I use 3 Bol & one Yahoo ... I'm trying to hold myself of using any Gmails!) When did you send it? I'll write you so as to let you know, but probably through messages--
See you next week ;)
G.--