[Izar]

Who here loves History? I do, it's my favorite subject. i'm getting an advanced placement class on it. Infact, i don't even have to listen to the teach cuz I know all of it anyways.

Well, my highest grades are in history, geography, english, and my science classes. My interest in history started when I was young, and you guessed it, one of my favorite channels is the History Channel.

So, does anyone here love history? I like things about the Alamo, Revolution, ancient mythology, acient cultures, and all that good stuff.

Share your thought. And if you don't like History, then don't diss it. :D

[Elliott]

Last semester I took 20th Century History concerning World Wars 1 and 2, and everything leading up to them and in between. This semester I am doing unit 2 which is concerning South African history. (Afrikaners, Boer Wars etc.)

History is a great subject in my opinion, but it depends on the culture. For example, I find Australian history dead boring, but US history interest me.

Ancient history and medievil history would be my prefered though, it's nice to look into the origins of this race, see what made us what we are.

[Izar]

Yeah, I like history with blood, betrayal, all that good stuff. Some history gets kinda boring, like the history of the Incas... Aztecs are cool, but Incas are just a bit boring...

[Eugine]

I couldn't do History because we had to choose between History and Physics --- and yes you guessed right. I did Physics, although I did do the basics on Caribbean History and European History.

So yeah, I don't really like History.

[Izar]

Wowo, they give us History and physics. But if i had to choose, History of course.

What interests me is the time of the old testement, and Medievel times.

[Eugine]

We have Religous Instructions in our school so they don't teach us that in intro. History class which was two years ago.

The majority of teachers are Christians, so they mention it alot in classes but that's a different topic.

I'd love to learn Mythology History, it seems to be the most interesting. In modern times though Europeans do have the most interesting History. I did it :D.

Yeah, I'm becoming repetitive.

[Izar]

We aren't allowed to have religious instructions. :D But our teach was like a nun. Lol, she traveled with a lot of catholic archeaology digs. But anyways, I find Religious histories very interesting, be it mythology, christianity, buddhism, or anything.

[Luna]

I LOVE history <3.

In Elementary school, I only had history classes about my country. I didn't get something different until 7th grade. We covered most of the world but in a more geographical sense.

Then, in 8th grade, we covered pretty much everything. Medieval (spell it right please >.o) Times, Crusades, Renaissance, French Revolution, Industrial Revolution, World Wars, et ceterá.

9th grade had more history from my country and 10th grade had U.S. History </3. I never liked U.S. History. I never saw the point in learning it. I'm not trying to be racist or offensive here but during U.S. History, a classmate of mine stated: "With every chapter we cover, I'm more ashamed of them." We just never really saw the point but our school is a U.S. School so, we had no other choice.

[pHantOm]

History = |33t

I myself found US History boring, because it was the same thing ive heard most of my life but with more in-depth details. I like World History, like World Wars and things that I havent heard much about. For my senior year (This school year comming up) I signed up for European History, because quite frankly im ashamed of the US. Most countries know so much about the US yet we citizens know NOTHING of other countries and hardly any of our own. Were pretty pathetic im sry to say. I find Spanish and British history very interesting because of the westward movement to America. Personally, I dislike the French since their amazing declaration of defeat to Hitler 2 weeks into world war 2. I like colonial era in US times though, with George Washington etc. Forgot to say, I have been in advanced history classes since 9th grade (Since highschool) because my parents believe I have a great "talent"with remembering names and events. Being is how ive Aced history since 6th grade I will agree.

[Eugine]

Yeah, I have books on American history and its quite uninteresting --- They quite boast alot about their success, but anyways. Its not my type.

I'd like to go deep into Japanese history more since I'm fascinated about their country, anyone been into it?

[Dullahan]

Ha! I did Classics at A level because i love Greek myth, you learn a lot about Greek and Roamn history. Modern History bores me at A Level all you study is the politics of war and such rubbish, modern historty goes on and on about the world wars in the most boring way possible.

[Power Piers]

I like learning about the World War I - II and the Cold War. I especially liked learning about the Holocaust. This year we covered the Eastern Hemisphere, next year it is U.S. History.

[Golden Djinn13]

Last year I had US History with the best History teacher in my school. History was my favorite subject.

[Izar]

Eugine, on Jul 25 2005, 05:23 AM, said:

Yeah, I have books on American history and its quite uninteresting --- They quite boast alot about their success, but anyways. Its not my type.

I'd like to go deep into Japanese history more since I'm fascinated about their country, anyone been into it?

What kinda books are you reading? lol, your reading the wrong ones. Man, it's strange though, a'll are reading more about History of the United States than anything. We learn more about World History. I'm taking an AP US History class next, and I've never had a US history class since the 7th grade. (I'm going to the 11th).

Anyways, I'm getting one of the hardest teachers, she puches all the world alot. Oh wells, at least we get to watch history movies.

[Neo]

History interest me, but only in certain aspects. In a wide range I actually only like the Medieval times, and the World Wars, preferably WW II. But I will always prefer the Medievals over 19th century histories. The large-scale battles from the medieval times were, to say it in a strange way, fair. Ofcourse it's not fair to cut people in half, but it's fair in a way of how to die. In the Medieval times, you would look your opponent in the eyes when you die, or at least be close to him (Don't count arrows with this, they weren't used a lot in large-scale close combat battles). In the second world war, most of the times you were shot by somebody 100 ft away, and usually you wouldn't even see your murderer. Then there were snipers, killing silently and deadly efficent. No, I prefer the Medieval times, but on second place comes WWII.

[Echo_djinn]

Can I just say that CANADIAN HISTORY just plain sucks and is quite boring.....quite. Most of it's history revolves around the british and how we broke free and more boring crap. Nothing that really interests the reader or me at least.

[Eugine]

Izar I can't recall the book from my head but the book do mention alot about "A 200 year old country being the most prosperous". "We the leader of technology". And some other stuff, I'll quote whenever I pick up the book again.

I gave up history class because it surrounds slavery and such. You could learn all these things on the street.

[Wild Fox]

History is really fascinating. I love how everything in history is so interconnected. You can't fully grasp any one facet of history before studying another.

A word of warning Izar: I understand that you love history. Don't get ****y though. I took advanced placement history. Listen to your teacher. They know more than a book. (unless your teacher is a worthless bag of hot air. if that's the case, ignore them to your heart's content :D ) I took advanced placement biology and got ****y. I sacrificed my test scores as a result. Don't do what I did. :(

[Izar]

Don't get ****y? I lead the school in brains when it comes to history. I know what I'm doing, History is my life, and I have taken advanced placement classes before.

Anyways, lol, Eugine, it's true, but it's still a awaste talking about how we lead the world. :D

[Eothain]

Dullahan, on Jul 25 2005, 05:50 AM, said:

Ha! I did Classics at A level because i love Greek myth, you learn a lot about Greek and Roamn history.  Modern History bores me at A Level all you study is the politics of war and such rubbish, modern historty goes on and on about the world wars in the most boring way possible.

Oie. Completely agree with you. Personally, I like history till the time of the conquistadores (yeah, that's spanish), and maybe just a bit further...but that's it. When everything starts gettin too politic, it stops appealing to me.

[Izar]

Modern history sucks if it has nothing to do with war lol. I prefer actually history :o

[Eugine]

Yeah modern history deals with more politics. No wonder I dropped History ^_~

[Golden Djinn13]

I really don't like modern history. I like learning about the world wars and stuff.

[Eothain]

Golden Djinn13, on Aug 5 2005, 04:32 PM, said:

I really don't like modern history. I like learning about the world wars and stuff.

:P that's what we mean by "modern history" I suppose...if i remember right it is called "contemporary history", which would make sense, as "contemporary" also means "modern"...anyways, whatever floats yer boat...

[Izar]

Well, I got a History project, and it bites. I gotta read a book, watch a movie, and right 2 reports in one week. Wish me luck.

[Eothain]

GOOD LUCK! :P anyways, shouldn't be too much of a burden if you like history a lot...I know it comes down to what part of history we're talking about, but still...

[Izar]

Ya. I gotta Watch The Patriot again and read Warrioirs dont cry again. or i can jsut skip the work and copy off a friend. :P

[Venus dude 21]

knew you guys would catch me with this eventually, i am a history geek. I love it. Favorite time has to be the civil war/revolutionary era. That was full of exiting stuff for our country. ( usa, go us )

[Golden Djinn13]

Me too, I think that is the most interesting part in U.S history ( besides the world wars)

[Izar]

I like the time of Egypt. I wouldn't be suprised if I became an Egyptologist. I love learning about their mythology, their lifestyles, etc.

People think that Moses didn't exist because he was never on heiroglyphs. But, what was on hieroglyphs was sopposed to be what happened in their afterlife, but uh, who would want a loss or stuff like that in their afterlives?

[Kwesi]

History fascinates me as well I always used to get straight A's in my history classes. I esecially did well on american histroy and how we fought the british and stuff.

That long enough Izar?

[Izar]

Yes, but you didn't need to say that.

Anyways, In Egypt, I like the theories on how they built the pyramids. it always facinated me on exactly what the used.

[Eugine]

Yeah, I always wondered how they did it, thinking of the technology they had access to back then.

They seem to be very intelligent back then. From what I read it also seemed that the aztecs were also an intelligent race.

[Eothain]

Eugine, on Aug 12 2005, 12:05 PM, said:

Yeah, I always wondered how they did it, thinking of the technology they had access to back then.

They seem to be very intelligent back then. From what I read it also seemed that the aztecs were also an intelligent race.

these people were geniuses. Egyptians and aztecs and incas were amazingly bright people. The egyptians developed the basis for the medicinal methods used today, and them and the mesoamerican civilzations were using complicated algebra and geometry functions to construct their buildings and irrigation systems. The Incas had the longest bridges among the early civilizations, and they only used wood and stone. And, as for the egyptian pyramids...if there's something that shows their level of intelligence it's that. There are many theories as to how they were built, but not even with today's technology and architectural methods we'd be able to recreate them. It's simply amazing.

[Izar]

Quote

There are many theories as to how they were built, but not even with today's technology and architectural methods we'd be able to recreate them. It's simply amazing.

With today's technologies, of course we can built pyramids of that type, it's just that they didn't have our technologies.

[Eothain]

Izar, on Aug 12 2005, 04:30 PM, said:

With today's technologies, of course we can built pyramids of that type, it's just that they didn't have our technologies.

of that TYPE, yes, but people are still skeptical as to how they built them, cause even with today's methods it wouldn't be such an easy task. I mean, rebuilding the "twin counterparts" of the Giza pyramids.

[Izar]

Yes, but you said we can't. O.o?

I think though, that they may have used wind power. I watched on the descovery channel how they made a kite fly and it lifted a huge pillar that wieghed tons.

[Eothain]

Izar, on Aug 13 2005, 07:44 PM, said:

I watched on the descovery channel how they made a kite fly and it lifted a huge pillar that wieghed tons.

so, that's supposed to make more sense than my statement? O.o? XD, kidding.Well... not really...I've just never heard of a kite lifting such a heavy object. No, not even a really big kite lifting such amount of weight. And about the pyramid thing...for some reason when i posted i was thinking about something other than the pyramids...sorry bout that...the whole time i had in mind something else i saw in a program i believe is called "engineering the impossible", or something along those lines...

[Eugine]

Excuses excuses. XD :P (copys WD)

Something I wondered that deals with history, in the past. It was proven that men lived longer. Examples: The people of the bible, the greek philosophers etc. etc.

They all lived over/about 150 years, amazing... How going through time decreased our life span, when now they boast about our life span are increasing...

[Eothain]

Eugine, on Aug 13 2005, 08:35 PM, said:

Excuses excuses. XD :P (copys WD)

Something I wondered that deals with history, in the past. It was proven that men lived longer. Examples: The people of the bible, the greek philosophers etc. etc.

They all lived over/about 150 years, amazing... How going through time decreased our life span, when now they boast about our life span are increasing...

wow...i dunno, i've never heard of greek philosophers living longer than we live now... in fact, the only stuff i've heard is that people wouldn't live past 40-60 back then... and about the bible...let's just say that i consider it a VERY inaccurate and unreliable source of history and information.

[Eugine]

Well, some of the greeks and such are included in the bible, so if you don't believe in it, you wouldn't consider my information a fact, but all I know in the bible one man lived around a 1000 years!

[Eothain]

yeah, well, in the Lord of the Rings books men and elves and the Istari live for hundreds or even thousands of years...but that is not the point...the reason why i said this

Quote

let's just say that i consider it a VERY inaccurate and unreliable source of history and information.

is cause, in my opinion, the dominant religion at the time, is the one that basically writes history. So, most of what we know about older periods of time, specially before christianity, is pretty inaccurate. Or "accurate only to a certain point", however you wanna call it...that's a conclusion i've drawn from reading certain material on the scrolls of the Dead Sea (if anyone knows about those...), which contradicts some of the stuff in the bible. and why do i affiliate mroe with the scrolls? simple. They talk about a lot of stuff from the pre constantine era, but from an unbiased point of view, meaning, with nothing regarding religion in the way.

[Izar]

The bible is considered a historic tool by almsot every historian I have heard of. When Archeaologists set out to find things in the Bible, like Jerico, Sodam, The events taking place in the bible, they are true, historians know that. What They do not know is if it is 100% accurate.

And how in THE WORLD do you think the dead sea scroll contridicts the bible? I have read the majority of what they have uncovered and translated, and all it is is copies of the old testement with a few extra verses, and some other things by the Jews during the Jewish Wars.

[Eothain]

HOW DO THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS CONTRADICT THE BIBLE?! what kind of question is that?! they completely contradict one of the most basic beliefs of christianity. If you want me to be specific, then its the belief that Jesus Christ was God's son. The scrolls portray Jesus as quite a regular guy, a normal person, who followed a normal life, had a wife and family, etc. If that doesn't contradict the Bible, then I don't know what does.

[Izar]

Eothain, on Aug 14 2005, 01:22 PM, said:

HOW DO THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS CONTRADICT THE BIBLE?! what kind of question is that?! they completely contradict one of the most basic beliefs of christianity. If you want me to be specific, then its the belief that Jesus Christ was God's son. The scrolls portray Jesus as quite a regular guy, a normal person, who followed a normal life, had a wife and family, etc. If that doesn't contradict the Bible, then I don't know what does.

They do NOT contridict Jesus, they were written around the Time of Jesus, so They did not accept him as the messiah (or at least most didn't). And they DO NOT say he had a wife and family. I have read enough to know that. And remember, the jews were very hostile to "Messianic Jews" as they were called. (They were not called Christians until after the dead sea scrolls were written).

http://www.thewords....nitywestern.htm

"The Dead Sea Scrolls turn a lot of modern New Testament research on
its head because they show that much in the New Testament actually
was part of Judaism in the first century B.C. and was not projected
back onto Jesus and the early Christians by a later generation."
-Dr. PETER FLINT, Trinity Western University

I think your getting your stuff from the Davinci Code, which, mind you, was disprooved around 30 years before it was even written. The writer took fables and falsehoods and tied them together and told them as fact.

"Take, for example, the New Testament Gospel according to John. Before the discovery of the scrolls, scholars believed John was written by someone in the Greco-Roman empire many years after the death of Jesus of Nazareth. The humanist theologian Rudolf Bultmann, for example, argued that numerous elements in John particularly its famous dualism between light as goodness and darkness as evil simply had no counterpart in the Jewish literature of Jesus' time. But the scrolls have revealed certain practices and images that place John firmly in a first-century Jewish context." - From the site above.

[Eothain]

i have read the davinci code, and liked it, but i know a lot, if not most of the stuff in it is made up. Know that you're not the only one that "reads stuff" online. I do my research too, and right now, i can't find the link to the site that gave me the idea you so energetically disagree with. But if i find it i'll gladly share it with you.

[Izar]

Read stuff online? I never said I was the only one, and nor do i actually read anything really unless it interests me. And that site, it is most likely falsehoods, ever watch the History Channel, or the national Geographic Channel?

Well, thanks to my history teacher, I've learned some interesting things about my town. I got to school in a very famouse place. It was the place where Robert LaSalle, the great French explorer, was killed by his own men. We had about 15-20 bars, while most cities had like, 2 or maybe 3 (this was in around 1910 or so). Anyways, the Famouse Frank Hamer, the guy who helped out with capturing Bonnie and Clyde, cleared up the place, reducing the bars and such. Very interesting.

[Eothain]

Izar, on Aug 16 2005, 05:19 PM, said:

And that site, it is most likely falsehoods

why? cause the guy that posted the information has a different view than the guy you quoted?

Quote

ever watch the History Channel, or the national Geographic Channel?

yes, I do. And yes, I HAVE seen that program that discredits the information in the DaVinci code, and for some reason i imagined you shouting "praise the lord" at your tv while watching it.

[Golden Legacy]

I do also enjoy history, but as some of you have explained yourselves, only specific aspects. Last school year, I took an Advanced Placement Course in European History, beginning with the Renaissance onward, and that interested quite a lot, especially such topics as the French Revolution, the eras of Metternich and Napolean, Bismarck ( :D ) and plenty of others.

I also enjoy, to an extent, learning about the Middle Ages and Medieval Times.

However, I absolutely detest United States history, and I will be taking another Advanced Placement course on the subject. Woe be me.

[Izar]

Eothain, on Aug 16 2005, 07:18 PM, said:

why? cause the guy that posted the information has a different view than the guy you quoted?

No, You can't say "The dead sea scrolls says this" when it doesn't, it's not an opinion. You said that he found something in the dead sea scrolls about jesus having a wife. If it's not there, and he says it is, that's not an opinion, he's stating something as fact, which isn't.

And no, don't think I would shout "praise the lord" at the tv, I'm not half as religious as I am on the internet, so do not say that, and I have dsaid before, DO NOT SAY THAT.

[Eothain]

forget the wife. What about Jesus not being God's son, just being a normal religious human?

Quote

I'm not half as religious as I am on the internet

:D :D :P :o then why does it bother you so much that i'd say you'd shout "praise the lord"?

[Izar]

You said something tottally different. No post said anything about Jesus being the son of God, so why did you put that in? Ugh nevermind.

Don't even try me. You, on that post, are trying to "make fun" of me, as you might say, with the reasons of the 4 smilies in a row, and your tone. Do it again and I will warn you.

Why wouldn't it bother me? On the internet, people are crazy, that's why I keep my religion to a higher degree here, but this IS NOT a religious topic, so stay on topic.

-END OF THAT DISCUSSION-

I'm learning about the founding of Jamestown, again, in AP US History. it's pretty awesome. A guy was so hungry he killed his wife and salted and ate her. They found out and hung him.

I found out that my town is incredibly famous. Some baseball player is the son of a teacher here, and I met him and his brother before, and there are a few football players from here, and the guy who played the Dad on the Brady bunch (who was g a y, truely) went to school here 2 times.

EDIT: I have deleted your post for reasons as said above, Eothain. I said END OF DISCUSSION. and when I say that, I mean it.

[Eothain]

that's not cool...why was my post deleted? i got back on topic at the very bottom!! i swear! it was like...3 sentences... I'd have to agree with the guys from Pantera: this is Vulgar Display of Power.

[Izar]

I told you END OF DISCUSSION but you continued to talk about what I said not too. This isn't a religion topic. Feel free to type anything that isn't off topic again. i know you went back on topic, but you should have STAYED on topic, and did what I asked. I won't warn you for this BUT:

10. Posts may be deleted and/or edited for any reasons the forum administrators deem reasonable.

11. Users may not argue a moderator's decision publicly. Any and all complaints directed at a moderator must first address the moderator in question via PM. If the problem can not be resolved, then the moderator and user must send their positions to the forum admin. The forum admin will make or change any and/or all final decisions.

And so, it is not an abuse of my moderation abilities.

[Eothain]

i know, juss wanted to give you something to chew on. I guess you really didn't take time to read my post before deleting it. I wasn't the only one who talked about religion...but then again...i guess you'd never actually warn yourself for being off topic...

[Izar]

Are you trying to put the blame on me? I have been a moderator long enough to know what I am doing. I stopped the talk on religion, and YES I DID READ your whole post, and I have said END OF DISCUSSION more than twice. What is so hard to understand about that? If you talk about this argument again, unless via PM, e-mail, etc, I will warn you, and I will not hesitate to do so.

[Eothain]

nobody's putting the blame on you. Nobody's questioning your moderating skills. It is just you making it harder on yourself and me. Honest. And, although i'm not asking for it, you, as a moderator, can warn me if you deem it necessary. It's your job, and I more than understand that. I'm smart enough to know whether what i post is going to get warned or not. If i get warned, so be it, i won't cry about it.

[Eugine]

Didn't fine anything wrong with it so I left it alone, but Izar is a moderator Eothian, you cannot argue with him (unless discussing a topic of course -- which you was... :D )

Please go back on topic anyways Eothian, we do not want you to leave nor warn you.

You know, if the Europeans didn't disturb the "New World" the world would of been much better IMO.
The Amerindians would of be much better of, I'm not saying they couldn't forge an alliance with them, but killing them, that was by far cruel.

They could of help them develop good technology, make our world more secure and they were very peaceful. So we wouldn't of had to study about war.

[Eothain]

Eugine, on Aug 18 2005, 06:35 PM, said:

So we wouldn't of had to study about war.

good point. I'm good with all-out, full-scale medieval battles. But lengthy, single-man lines of englishmen firing muskets at the same time does not interest me at all. PLEASE notice, i have nothing against the british, it was just to give an idea/present a scenario. But oh well, can't go back in time and prevent all the bloodshed. The europeans were thinking just as any other civilization ever thought. They wanted to expand, they wanted to be richer, they wanted to be bigger and stronger than everybody else.

[Izar]

Englishmen... bah, I prefer the old French. The only problem with them, I think, is that they lacked cavalry. I know though, that the English were the most successful bowmen at the time, while the French prefered short range (don't trust movies).

[Eothain]

I know yeah, Hollywood does indeed like to distort historical facts. And British bowmen are legendary. If anyone's played Age of Empires before, you'll find out that they kinda exaggerate it.HAHA, you can pretty much shoot arrows from the other end of the map.

[Izar]

Lol, a BIT too much. But still, Age of Empires was actually a great historical game. They did have good facts and such, but as everything does, it kinda puts in extra elements to improve the story... That's one of the things I don't like about historical movies. Braveheat was very close to the story, but it still had very depleted historical elements.

[Eothain]

speaking about historical movies...anyone seen Troy? if your answer is "no", then i have an intelligent suggestion to make: DO NOT watch it. You'll thank me later. Anyways, I've come to the following conclusion about historical movies: IN GENERAL (and this is from MY experience, do not regard this as a fact), the less historically accurate ones are better than the more historically accurate ones. Take, for example, Gladiator, or Kingdom of Heaven. While they have their flaws as far as historical accuracy goes, they are GREAT movies. And I'd get Tony the tiger to say the "GREAT" part, but he was in Honolulu.

[Izar]

I saw part of it. Not very accurate, nor was it any good.

I plan on doing some history digs soon. It's like... Home research. I've done it before(all the time), but I plan on writing a long one this time, possibly over Egypt.

[Eothain]

that's cool. The really old civilizations are quite interesting. All of them, the Egyptians, the Babylonians, Greeks...the list goes on and on...but one thing i've noticed, as you go back in time more, history seems to be "richer"...I mean...from the 1800's on it's pretty much...war,war,war....

[Izar]

I want to learn more of the Pheonicians(Canaanites). They seem to have some interesting ship designs. Sopposably, they were better than the greeks.

[Eothain]

yup, phoenicians were pioneers at sailing. Another civilization that had really efficient ships were the vikings. They were master craftsmen at it. They made ships big enough to carry many people, while strong enough to sail in deep water, and light enough to carry on foot at the same time. That's pretty amazing in my opinion.

[Izar]

Vikings were jsut palin awesome. When they were converted to Christianity, they still didn't lose their supreme brutality.

[Eugine]

Oh, Vikings. I only know about them through Age of Empires II, but they were awesome. They are infact brutal (in terms of AOE)... But there's alot of other civilizations which are better than them.

[Eothain]

"better"...yes...but you have to recognize these guys had technologies nobody else possessed at the time. The boats are a prefect example of this. And also, according to something i watched in the history channel, they had the most advanced ring mail armor, which, when coupled with padding, worn below the ring mail (which they obviously did), would prevent almostany spear thrust to penetrate. Also, if anyone's heard of it before, theories have arised, that state that vikings were the very first to discover the Americas, by setting foot on what today is Greenland. I think it is very possible that they did.

[Izar]

Well, no one is even sure about that. On the Discovery channel(or maybe it was the hostory channel), they were testing armor and weapons of the Vikings, and the armor was not even close to what the Europeans had, but if they did wear leather under it, which many think about, then they would have had moderate armor. And the weapons, well, they were very... "crude." They had, what Eothain has already mentioned, an episode on the history channel. Many think they had very powerful and sophisticated ships, which is very well proven. You must also remember, they had, what historians have found, very POOR shields... They were wood, and the only way they could avoid being hit was to tilt the shield... And they were all made of wood, very anti-AOE.

I think they DID discover america. They found a camp that soppsably belonged to the vikings, but of course, carbon dating aint working right, so it's still jsut a theory.

And even so, Columbus didn't even land on America, he landed in the caribbean.

My favorite Explorers include Robert La Salle (who died near navasota, where my school is), and Alvar Nunez Cabeza de Vaca (Head of caw? lol) who shipwrecked in Galveston, also here in Texas not too far from me.

[Eothain]

yeah, I know Columbus landed on the Caribbean (on the island Hispaniola, if I remember right), but still, they'd find the rest of america after that. Also, regarding armor. I know they had poor shields, and their armor wasn't as strong as european one in general, but their RINGMAIL was, given the fact thet it was composed of a "mixture" of different types of rings. It's just that vikings in general didn't wear cast iron plates, or any heavy type of armor like that. They wore mostly leather on top of ringmail and fur.

Now, another very interesting group of barbarians were the Mongols. Very cruel people. Piles of bodies left after raids, countless heads on spears planted in the ground...so nice

[Izar]

The ringmail was outside the leather or cuirass.

Mongols were great conquerers, but other than that, I don't prefer to study them.

[Eothain]

Izar, on Aug 28 2005, 06:10 PM, said:

The ringmail was outside the leather or cuirass.

: blink : i know it went on top of fur and cloth, but I always thought ringmail was the last layer UNDERNEATH the actual piece of armor, be it leather or iron or steel...now, if you meant padding, that's different. Padding went underneath mail.

[Izar]

I said that Leather went under, close to the skin. The rings would pull on hair, have you ever wore chainmail? lol, that stuff will take your hair right off.

[Eothain]

i have never worn ringmail in my life. Would be pretty interesting tho, to try some on. HAve you worn chain/ringmail?

[Izar]

Yes, like I said, pulls on hair. And ouch, it hurts. But I am not sure if it was the Viking kind... I think that's what it was, but even if it wasn't it'd still pull on hairs.

I watched The Vikings on Histories Mystories.

Vikings never wore Horns on their helmets, it was actually popularized by an opera in the 19th century.

[Eothain]

yeah, they never wore horns on their helmets. Their helmets,as is my understanding, were actually kinda similar to the samurai ones. The strong part was only the top, the lower half of the helmets (those "flap" thingies) were usually leather. What I mean by this is, their helmets were not like those iron buckets most european soldiers wore on their heads.

[Izar]

Actually, they were very close to the british. They rarely used leather in helmets.

http://www.scandinavianheritage.com/images...king-helmet.gif

http://www.jelldrago..._helmet_600.jpg

http://www.fullcircleevents.org/witches_ba...elmet_small.jpg

They're armor used more iron than steel, and so did they're weapons, which were not all that great, well, to scholars. They were crude, and sometimes war torn.

[Eothain]

see? that's what i mean. They cover the top half of the head. Anyways, i'd like to introduce another topic in this history thread. It's fairly modern, and probably not many people know about it (except izar, HE knows ^_^ ): It's the (commonly known as) Falkland islands issue. Falkland Islands is how the british and americans call them, and Islas Malvinas is how argentines call them. I'd simply like to see people's views on the issue: who do you think had "the right" to own the islands? were the british wrong in invading the islands? or should the argentines just have left the brits alone? I think this is going to turn out as an interesting conversation, as we have some people from england in these boards.

[Eugine]

HMM. First time I bumped into that subject so I read up some of it on Wikipedia. Why not let the people from Falkland decide on their own, I think they will go with the british though.

[Izar]

More like European helms, not Samurai.

Actually this is something I don't know about too much. All I know is that it was invaded by the british, but claimed by Argentina.

Here's some stuff I've read:

The Falkland Islands are a group of islands in the south Atlantic. The two main islands, East Falkland and West Falkland, lie 300 miles [480 km] east of the Argentina coast. About 200 smaller islands form a total land area of approximately 4,700 square miles (12,200 square km). The capital and only town is (Port) Stanley.
The government of the Falkland Islands administers the British dependent territories of South Georgia, the South Sandwich Islands, and the Shag and Clerke rocks, lying from 700 to 2,000 miles (1,100 to 3,200 km) to the east and southeast of the Falklands. The total population of the islands was estimated at 2100 (in 1991) and 2967 in July 2003.

Argentina has claimed the islands since 1820. Britain had occupied and administered the islands since 1833 and had consistently rejected Argentina's claims.

Argentina has claimed the islands since 1820. Britain had occupied and administered the islands since 1833 and had consistently rejected Argentina's claims.

The Falklands War, chronicled below, started after Argentina invaded and took control of the islands in April 1982.

During the war, the British captured about 10,000 Argentine prisoners, all of whom were released afterwards. Argentina sustained 655 men killed, while Britain lost 236. Argentina's ignominious defeat severely discredited the military government and led to the restoration of civilian rule in Argentina in 1983.


http://www.yendor.co...klands-war.html

I think that Argentina should get them, they were there before the British.

Anyone here know Texas history? It's probably one of the coolest out.