Has anyone read this book?

[TehMac]

I am reading his part 1--warfare in the ancient world, and I'm interested in obtaining Warfare in the Medieval World, but amazon doesn't have it, Barnes and Nobles doesn't, and neither does Border's.

So. I'm busy scouring around the world to find a copy of the god damned book, but is it even worth it?

I'm reading WitAW and there are some glaring things--Carey's usage of the "politically correctification" of the timelines (B.C. and A.D. are the traditional and most scholarly ways of measuring dates, only this time, institutionalization and such bull shit has replaced them with B.C.E. (Before Common Era) and C.E. (Common Era--semi rant--what's so common about the dates after 0 AD? The idiots are trying to juvenilize and institutionalize history so they can use it for their own political agendas).


The author also states that Hittites rode in "6 wheeled chariots." If they did, that's not a chariot, Mr. Carey, that's a frickin wagon. There are some glaring grammar and contextual errors as well. But he's done a good job of presentation, but it seems a little below my level so far.

So if anyone has read Warfare in the Medieval World, give me a shout please and tell me how it is. It got a 5/5 from 6 reviews on Amazon, but because Amazon doesn't carry the book any more, the reviews are inaccessible.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: TehMac
I am reading his part 1--warfare in the ancient world, and I'm interested in obtaining Warfare in the Medieval World, but amazon doesn't have it, Barnes and Nobles doesn't, and neither does Border's.

So. I'm busy scouring around the world to find a copy of the god damned book, but is it even worth it?

I'm reading WitAW and there are some glaring things--Carey's usage of the "politically correctification" of the timelines (B.C. and A.D. are the traditional and most scholarly ways of measuring dates, only this time, institutionalization and such bull shit has replaced them with B.C.E. (Before Common Era) and C.E. (Common Era--semi rant--what's so common about the dates after 0 AD? The idiots are trying to juvenilize and institutionalize history so they can use it for their own political agendas).


The author also states that Hittites rode in "6 wheeled chariots." If they did, that's not a chariot, Mr. Carey, that's a frickin wagon. There are some glaring grammar and contextual errors as well. But he's done a good job of presentation, but it seems a little below my level so far.

So if anyone has read Warfare in the Medieval World, give me a shout please and tell me how it is. It got a 5/5 from 6 reviews on Amazon, but because Amazon doesn't carry the book any more, the reviews are inaccessible.

The switch to BCE has a number of goals, most of them laudible. BC/AD is not, as you suggest, currently scholarly and hasn't been in some time. No scholar worth his salt would use BC/AD any more. Papers in college history are now returned or marked down for such mistakes.

The overriding goal is to remove the 'westernication' of history. Only a westtern christian would consider christ to be the turning point of historic recording, or allow the catholic church control over how we rate time. In my opinion ANYTHING that removes religion from non-religious things is a good idea and can only benefit the world.

Having removed such context to the study of history we can invite other cultures and beliefs to join us in a merged view of history, affording far greater accuracy and depth of understanding without the associated in-fighting and such.

I'll check my university resources and see if I can scrounge you a copy of the book for a loan.

 

[Babbles]

BCE and CE has been used in academics for quite a while now, it is not entirely new.

 

[Saint Michael]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Papers in college history are now returned or marked down for such mistakes.

Your professors must have been way more bleeding heart than mine. Hell, the only history teacher I've had has been Chinese (from China Chinese) teaching Chinese history, and he used both AD/BC and BCE/CE, and let you use whatever you wanted. Incidentally one of the best teachers I've had so far.

 

[TehMac]

The overriding goal is to remove the 'westernication' of history. Only a westtern christian would consider christ to be the turning point of historic recording, or allow the catholic church control over how we rate time. In my opinion ANYTHING that removes religion from non-religious things is a good idea and can only benefit the world.

The switch to BCE is meant to correctly politicize history and make the West, the people who actually civilized the world and brought amazing things into the world look punitive in comparison to, say, The Arabs, who merely leeched off the Byzantines and the Jewish Populations. I have studied the Ummyadd, Abbasid and Seljuk dynasties, and that's clearly what happened, not meaning to diminish the Arabic Empires, but this talk of the Medieval Europeans being totally uncouth compared to the sophisticated Arabs goes only so far. This BCE and CE stuff is trying to start a shift in the way people view themselves and history, and is a useless change caused by meandering minds and useless intellectuals who view themselves as all knowing.


"Only Western Christians?" (You misspelled Western, btw, is that the new scholarly thing to do too?)

Well clearly, you don't know of the Eastern Orthodox Church, which resides in Greece and Armenia.

The Catholic Church has nothing to do with the naming of time, yes, it was religiously oriented, but considering its Latin, which is considered a dead language, I see no harm in it. It doesn't matter how you name, because the Calender is still Christian, its still based around Christ's birth, so the whole thing is so useless and full of bull shit atheist propaganda, it smacks of want to be academics with nothing other to do than rewrite history and make it seem what it isn't, when they're just wasting time renaming stuff.

We also name species of flora and fauna by Latin names, the same Latin which is the language of the Catholic Church. Should we not change these names for the sake of political correctness? That would help us gain a more centrist view on all those Asian species of plants and animals.


Thank you for the suggested effort, but please don't bother with finding the book, very kind of you, but the thread was written to those who have read the book and would like to pass comments on it.

 

[Caecus Veritas]

Originally posted by: TehMac

the West, the people who actually civilized the world and brought amazing things into the world look punitive in comparison to, say, The Arabs, who merely leeched off the Byzantines and the Jewish Populations. I

please explain your definition of civilized and all the amazing things the "West" brought to the world... :frown:

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Saint Michael

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Papers in college history are now returned or marked down for such mistakes.

Your professors must have been way more bleeding heart than mine. Hell, the only history teacher I've had has been Chinese (from China Chinese) teaching Chinese history, and he used both AD/BC and BCE/CE, and let you use whatever you wanted. Incidentally one of the best teachers I've had so far.

I was a history major, so they make sure we do things right. Non-history majors often get to slide by with their ignorance. 😎

 

[Pocatello]

I have Rome Total War, Medieval Total War II. I didn't know elephants can cause so much damage! Run away! Run away!

 

[pontifex]

try ebay, obviously.
also try abebooks or i think its called alibris?

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: TehMac

The overriding goal is to remove the 'westernication' of history. Only a westtern christian would consider christ to be the turning point of historic recording, or allow the catholic church control over how we rate time. In my opinion ANYTHING that removes religion from non-religious things is a good idea and can only benefit the world.

The switch to BCE is meant to correctly politicize history and make the West, the people who actually civilized the world and brought amazing things into the world look punitive in comparison to, say, The Arabs, who merely leeched off the Byzantines and the Jewish Populations. I have studied the Ummyadd, Abbasid and Seljuk dynasties, and that's clearly what happened, not meaning to diminish the Arabic Empires, but this talk of the Medieval Europeans being totally uncouth compared to the sophisticated Arabs goes only so far. This BCE and CE stuff is trying to start a shift in the way people view themselves and history, and is a useless change caused by meandering minds and useless intellectuals who view themselves as all knowing.


"Only Western Christians?" (You misspelled Western, btw, is that the new scholarly thing to do too?)

Well clearly, you don't know of the Eastern Orthodox Church, which resides in Greece and Armenia.

The Catholic Church has nothing to do with the naming of time, yes, it was religiously oriented, but considering its Latin, which is considered a dead language, I see no harm in it. It doesn't matter how you name, because the Calender is still Christian, its still based around Christ's birth, so the whole thing is so useless and full of bull shit atheist propaganda, it smacks of want to be academics with nothing other to do than rewrite history and make it seem what it isn't, when they're just wasting time renaming stuff.

We also name species of flora and fauna by Latin names, the same Latin which is the language of the Catholic Church. Should we not change these names for the sake of political correctness? That would help us gain a more centrist view on all those Asian species of plants and animals.


Thank you for the suggested effort, but please don't bother with finding the book, very kind of you, but the thread was written to those who have read the book and would like to pass comments on it.

FYI, europeans took everything the world had and ran with it.

china had explosives, textiles, language (the first style of printing press was chinese and used wooden blocks)
india/middle east had mathematics, sea navigation

basically until about the 1500's or so, china was THE most technically/civilly advanced society, if my world history serves me correctly.

 

[KingGheedora]

Originally posted by: TehMac
This BCE and CE stuff is trying to start a shift in the way people view themselves and history, and is a useless change caused by meandering minds and useless intellectuals who view themselves as all knowing.

Why are you so against BCE? I agree that' it's more symbolic than useful change, but it's harmless. I wouldn't fight it, but I wouldn't strongly support it either. I agree with the intent behind it, which is to secularize the terminology

The Catholic Church has nothing to do with the naming of time, yes, it was religiously oriented, but considering its Latin, which is considered a dead language, I see no harm in it. It doesn't matter how you name, because the Calender is still Christian, its still based around Christ's birth, so the whole thing is so useless and full of bull shit atheist propaganda, it smacks of want to be academics with nothing other to do than rewrite history and make it seem what it isn't, when they're just wasting time renaming stuff.

Atheist? What about everyone else who is non-Christian, and non-Atheist?

We also name species of flora and fauna by Latin names, the same Latin which is the language of the Catholic Church. Should we not change these names for the sake of political correctness? That would help us gain a more centrist view on all those Asian species of plants and animals.

You are using a straw man argument here. The Latin language existed before the Catholic Church, and has meaning outside of the Catholic Church and religion in general. Latin was the international language of science. If you wanted to participate in the scientific ("scholar") community you had to use Latin. Then it was French. Now it is English. I don't think it's unreasonable for scientists to want to use non-religious term, even if it is based on a date of reference that has religious significance. It would be ridiculous to have two dating systems based on two different dates of reference. Since the existing system is already so widespread it's more convenient to go with it.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

The switch to BCE has a number of goals, most of them laudible. BC/AD is not, as you suggest, currently scholarly and hasn't been in some time. No scholar worth his salt would use BC/AD any more. Papers in college history are now returned or marked down for such mistakes.

The overriding goal is to remove the 'westernication' of history. Only a westtern christian would consider christ to be the turning point of historic recording, or allow the catholic church control over how we rate time. In my opinion ANYTHING that removes religion from non-religious things is a good idea and can only benefit the world.

Having removed such context to the study of history we can invite other cultures and beliefs to join us in a merged view of history, affording far greater accuracy and depth of understanding without the associated in-fighting and such.

I'll check my university resources and see if I can scrounge you a copy of the book for a loan.

Pretty silly to think changing the name means anything when the timeline is still based around the same event.

 

[Saint Michael]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Saint Michael

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Papers in college history are now returned or marked down for such mistakes.

Your professors must have been way more bleeding heart than mine. Hell, the only history teacher I've had has been Chinese (from China Chinese) teaching Chinese history, and he used both AD/BC and BCE/CE, and let you use whatever you wanted. Incidentally one of the best teachers I've had so far.

I was a history major, so they make sure we do things right. Non-history majors often get to slide by with their ignorance. 😎

I think it speaks more to the fact that some people just don't let petty politically-correct stuff stand in the way of what's actually supposed to be taught: history. I think it's pretty silly to nitpick over such things when it really has little bearing on what's being taught, and only doing so for the benefit of one part of the political spectrum who have an axe to grind (and happen to basically own the entire process of higher education in our country).

 

[TehMac]

Originally posted by: Caecus Veritas

Originally posted by: TehMac

the West, the people who actually civilized the world and brought amazing things into the world look punitive in comparison to, say, The Arabs, who merely leeched off the Byzantines and the Jewish Populations. I

please explain your definition of civilized and all the amazing things the "West" brought to the world... :frown:

Well, how about the fact that the West engineered capitalism, and were able to create and blend all the technologies they came across, as well as engineering a culture that appreciates the common man; name any other society that became notable in history for appreciating the commoner--this revolution and evolution in culture is what led to the West's breakthrough in history.

In response to posts stating that the West leeched off people, yes they did, not denying that at all, but they were able to develop upon these ideas and go from them.

While China did indeed have massive technological wonders at her disposal, this did not at all mean that China herself was superior, because of the absolutely huge numbers of peasants reduced to serfs, the intrigue, constant civil war, coups and such that led to China hardly being considered a country at all through her career as an empire.


You had the Xia, Shang, Zhou, Qin, Han, Sui, Tang, and then there was the Sung, the North/South Song, the Yuan, the Ming, and then the Qing dynasty.

These dynasties were often split, especially with the North and South Song occupying roughly, the North and South of China-- with all the abuse of peasants going into the 20th century, and even some can argue, now, that hardly makes China culturally or societally advanced.

I'm not trying to disqualify China, but this attempt at trying to make the West seem less important in History, is asinine, and shows intellectual lacking and an attempt to try to sound academically important, when you're just being another tool.


Many atheist professors, use the B.C./A.D. system, because it's considered more scholarly, having been used before the B.C.E./C.E. nonsense and it's less "Whitewashing" of history. I find B.C.E./C.E. books to be of lesser scholarly merit, and they tend to make simplified, sweeping statements. Warfare in the Ancient World provides ample evidence of that.

For one thing, the author erroneously states that the Hittites' (for example) had 6 wheeled chariots. I don't know if that was misprint, I have noticed misprints elsewhere, perhaps he meant to say "six-spoked." He seems to mean six wheeled because he goes on to say how this vehicle consequently was less mobile than the Egyptians' and was used for shock value. While he is most likely correct in the shock value of Hittite Chariots, source material in the Temples of Luxor and Abu Simbel show a different analysis of Hittite Chariotry--they were two wheeled.

Another example is the concept of the Ancient Greek "Sacred Band" of Thebes. The author writes off this famous of band of the elite of Thebes as "Homosexuals."
For one thing, no one can say if the Greeks were truly homosexuals in the modern sense, because brotherly love and homosexuality and friendship were closely intertwined. In Sparta for example, a young boy for his training would be given an older instructor, and they had close relationships with each other. However, the Spartans frowned upon homosexuality, and encouraged Spartans to practice their militant behavior by sneaking off to visit their wives. In Thebes, homosexuality was more common, and probably in the form we think of it. The Sacred Band probably did have homosexuals in it, who were tied to each other, and the leaders thought this would encourage harder fighting, as the lovers would fight for each other's honor. Xenophon, a famous 5th century philosopher-general disagreed; he thought homosexuality was disgusting "and only weakens the resolve of the army as a whole." He did encourage "Spartan brotherly love."
Xenophon is an interesting case because he was raised in Athens, a place where homosexuality developed (but not as much as Thebes) and he later lived in Sparta, providing him with an insight into strategic and tactical insight.

The author however, although he does mention Xenophon, fails utterly to cite what Xenophon said, and just writes the Sacred Band off as homosexuals, so frivolously, which is dangerous, and maybe too simplified.

The author is very adept at detailing battles and the troop types, and he is certain to point out combined arms action, so I think overall, his book is superb, but a little too simplified in some areas, and lacking in others.



Prince of Wand's attitude disgusts me, because such a belligerent and thoughtless statement tend to show insecurities in one's own profession.

What is your History Major anyway?