Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Slaughter At The Bridge: Uncovering A Colossal Bronze Age Battle
223 views
Skip to first unread message
Ed Stasiak
Aug 3, 2016, 4:36:48 PM8/3/16
to
Interesting article and while not medieval in nature, this group
has become more of a general history forum, (when we’re not
shitposting…) so I felt it was reasonably on-topic;
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/slaughter-bridge-uncovering-colossal-bronze-age-battle
(also pics and link to podcast)
Slaughter at the bridge: Uncovering a colossal Bronze Age battle
By Andrew Curry
Mar. 24, 2016
“They weren't farmer-soldiers who went out every few years to brawl. These are professional fighters.”
— Thomas Terberger, archaeologist at the Lower Saxony State Service for Cultural Heritage —
About 3200 years ago, two armies clashed at a river crossing near the Baltic Sea. The confrontation can’t be found in any history books—the written word didn’t become common in these parts for another 2000 years—but this was no skirmish between local clans. Thousands of warriors came together in a brutal struggle, perhaps fought on a single day, using weapons crafted from wood, flint, and bronze, a metal that was then the height of military technology.
Struggling to find solid footing on the banks of the Tollense River, a narrow ribbon of water that flows through the marshes of northern Germany toward the Baltic Sea, the armies fought hand-to-hand, maiming and killing with war clubs, spears, swords, and knives. Bronze- and flint-tipped arrows were loosed at close range, piercing skulls and lodging deep into the bones of young men. Horses belonging to high-ranking warriors crumpled into the muck, fatally speared. Not everyone stood their ground in the melee: Some warriors broke and ran, and were struck down from behind.
When the fighting was through, hundreds lay dead, littering the swampy valley. Some bodies were stripped of their valuables and left bobbing in shallow ponds; others sank to the bottom, protected from plundering by a meter or two of water. Peat slowly settled over the bones. Within centuries, the entire battle was forgotten.
In 1996, an amateur archaeologist found a single upper arm bone sticking out of the steep riverbank—the first clue that the Tollense Valley, about 120 kilometers north of Berlin, concealed a gruesome secret. A flint arrowhead was firmly embedded in one end of the bone, prompting archaeologists to dig a small test excavation that yielded more bones, a bashed-in skull, and a 73-centimeter club resembling a baseball bat. The artifacts all were radiocarbon-dated to about 1250 B.C.E., suggesting they stemmed from a single episode during Europe’s Bronze Age.
Now, after a series of excavations between 2009 and 2015, researchers have begun to understand the battle and its startling implications for Bronze Age society. Along a 3-kilometer stretch of the Tollense River, archaeologists from the Mecklenburg-Vorpommern Department of Historic Preservation (MVDHP) and the University of Greifswald (UG) have unearthed wooden clubs, bronze spearheads, and flint and bronze arrowheads. They have also found bones in extraordinary numbers: the remains of at least five horses and more than 100 men. Bones from hundreds more may remain unexcavated, and thousands of others may have fought but survived.
“If our hypothesis is correct that all of the finds belong to the same event, we’re dealing with a conflict of a scale hitherto completely unknown north of the Alps,” says dig co-director Thomas Terberger, an archaeologist at the Lower Saxony State Service for Cultural Heritage in Hannover. “There’s nothing to compare it to.” It may even be the earliest direct evidence—with weapons and warriors together—of a battle this size anywhere in the ancient world.
Northern Europe in the Bronze Age was long dismissed as a backwater, overshadowed by more sophisticated civilizations in the Near East and Greece. Bronze itself, created in the Near East around 3200 B.C.E., took 1000 years to arrive here. But Tollense’s scale suggests more organization—and more violence—than once thought. “We had considered scenarios of raids, with small groups of young men killing and stealing food, but to imagine such a big battle with thousands of people is very surprising,” says Svend Hansen, head of the German Archaeological Institute’s (DAI’s) Eurasia Department in Berlin. The well-preserved bones and artifacts add detail to this picture of Bronze Age sophistication, pointing to the existence of a trained warrior class and suggesting that people from across Europe joined the bloody fray.
There’s little disagreement now that Tollense is something special. “When it comes to the Bronze Age, we’ve been missing a smoking gun, where we have a battlefield and dead people and weapons all together,” says University College Dublin (UCD) archaeologist Barry Molloy. “This is that smoking gun.”
The lakeside hunting lodge called Schloss Wiligrad was built at the turn of the 19th century, deep in a forest 14 kilometers north of Schwerin, the capital of the northern German state of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. Today, the drafty pile is home to both the state’s department of historic preservation and a small local art museum.
In a high-ceilinged chamber on the castle’s second floor, tall windows look out on a fog-shrouded lake. Inside, pale winter light illuminates dozens of skulls arranged on shelves and tables. In the center of the room, long leg bones and short ribs lie in serried ranks on tables; more remains are stored in cardboard boxes stacked on metal shelves reaching almost to the ceiling. The bones take up so much space there’s barely room to walk.
When the first of these finds was excavated in 1996, it wasn’t even clear that Tollense was a battlefield. Some archaeologists suggested the skeletons might be from a flooded cemetery, or that they had accumulated over centuries.
There was reason for skepticism. Before Tollense, direct evidence of large-scale violence in the Bronze Age was scanty, especially in this region. Historical accounts from the Near East and Greece described epic battles, but few artifacts remained to corroborate these boastful accounts. “Even in Egypt, despite hearing many tales of war, we never find such substantial archaeological evidence of its participants and victims,” UCD’s Molloy says.
In Bronze Age Europe, even the historical accounts of war were lacking, and all investigators had to go on were weapons in ceremonial burials and a handful of mass graves with unmistakable evidence of violence, such as decapitated bodies or arrowheads embedded in bones. Before the 1990s, “for a long time we didn’t really believe in war in prehistory,” DAI’s Hansen says. The grave goods were explained as prestige objects or symbols of power rather than actual weapons. “Most people thought ancient society was peaceful, and that Bronze Age males were concerned with trading and so on,” says Helle Vandkilde, an archaeologist at Aarhus University in Denmark. “Very few talked about warfare.”
The 10,000 bones in this room—what’s left of Tollense’s losers—changed all that. They were found in dense caches: In one spot, 1478 bones, among them 20 skulls, were packed into an area of just 12 square meters. Archaeologists think the bodies landed or were dumped in shallow ponds, where the motion of the water mixed up bones from different individuals. By counting specific, singular bones—skulls and femurs, for example—UG forensic anthropologists Ute Brinker and Annemarie Schramm identified a minimum of 130 individuals, almost all of them men, most between the ages of 20 and 30.
The number suggests the scale of the battle. “We have 130 people, minimum, and five horses. And we’ve only opened 450 square meters. That’s 10% of the find layer, at most, maybe just 3% or 4%,” says Detlef Jantzen, chief archaeologist at MVDHP. “If we excavated the whole area, we might have 750 people. That’s incredible for the Bronze Age.” In what they admit are back-of-the-envelope estimates, he and Terberger argue that if one in five of the battle’s participants was killed and left on the battlefield, that could mean almost 4000 warriors took part in the fighting.
Brinker, the forensic anthropologist in charge of analyzing the remains, says the wetness and chemical composition of the Tollense Valley’s soil preserved the bones almost perfectly. “We can reconstruct exactly what happened,” she says, picking up a rib with two tiny, V-shaped cuts on one edge. “These cut marks on the rib show he was stabbed twice in the same place. We have a lot of them, often multiple marks on the same rib.”
Scanning the bones using microscopic computer tomography at a materials science institute in Berlin and the University of Rostock has yielded detailed, 3D images of these injuries. Now, archaeologists are identifying the weapons responsible by matching the images to scans of weapons found at Tollense or in contemporary graves elsewhere in Europe. Diamond-shaped holes in bones, for example, match the distinctive shape of bronze arrowheads found on the battlefield. (Bronze artifacts are found more often than flint at Tollense, perhaps because metal detectors were used to comb spoil piles for artifacts.)
The bone scans have also sharpened the picture of how the battle unfolded, Terberger says. In x-rays, the upper arm bone with an embedded arrowhead—the one that triggered the discovery of the battlefield—seemed to show signs of healing. In a 2011 paper in Antiquity, the team suggested that the man sustained a wound early in the battle but was able to fight on for days or weeks before dying, which could mean that the conflict wasn’t a single clash but a series of skirmishes that dragged out for several weeks.
Microscopic inspection of that wound told a different story: What initially looked like healing—an opaque lining around the arrowhead on an x-ray—was, in fact, a layer of shattered bone, compressed by a single impact that was probably fatal. “That let us revise the idea that this took place over weeks,” Terberger says. So far no bodies show healed wounds, making it likely the battle happened in just a day, or a few at most. “If we are dealing with a single event rather than skirmishes over several weeks, it has a great impact on our interpretation of the scale of the conflict.”
In the last year, a team of engineers in Hamburg has used techniques developed to model stresses on aircraft parts to understand the kinds of blows the soldiers suffered. For example, archaeologists at first thought that a fighter whose femur had snapped close to the hip joint must have fallen from a horse. The injury resembled those that result today from a motorcycle crash or equestrian accident.
But the modeling told a different story. Melanie Schwinning and Hella Harten-Buga, University of Hamburg archaeologists and engineers, took into account the physical properties of bone and Bronze Age weapons, along with examples of injuries from horse falls. An experimental archaeologist also plunged recreated flint and bronze points into dead pigs and recorded the damage.
Schwinning and Harten-Buga say a bronze spearhead hitting the bone at a sharp downward angle would have been able to wedge the femur apart, cracking it in half like a log. “When we modeled it, it looks a lot more like a handheld weapon than a horse fall,” Schwinning says. “We could even recreate the force it would have taken—it’s not actually that much.” They estimate that an average-sized man driving the spear with his body weight would have been enough.
Why the men gathered in this spot to fight and die is another mystery that archaeological evidence is helping unravel. The Tollense Valley here is narrow, just 50 meters wide in some spots. Parts are swampy, whereas others offer firm ground and solid footing. The spot may have been a sort of choke point for travelers journeying across the northern European plain.
In 2013, geomagnetic surveys revealed evidence of a 120-meter-long bridge or causeway stretching across the valley. Excavated over two dig seasons, the submerged structure turned out to be made of wooden posts and stone. Radiocarbon dating showed that although much of the structure predated the battle by more than 500 years, parts of it may have been built or restored around the time of the battle, suggesting the causeway might have been in continuous use for centuries—a well-known landmark.
“The crossing played an important role in the conflict. Maybe one group tried to cross and the other pushed them back,” Terberger says. “The conflict started there and turned into fighting along the river.”
In the aftermath, the victors may have stripped valuables from the bodies they could reach, then tossed the corpses into shallow water, which protected them from carnivores and birds. The bones lack the gnawing and dragging marks typically left by such scavengers.
Elsewhere, the team found human and horse remains buried a meter or two lower, about where the Bronze Age riverbed might have been. Mixed with these remains were gold rings likely worn on the hair, spiral rings of tin perhaps worn on the fingers, and tiny bronze spirals likely used as decorations. These dead must have fallen or been dumped into the deeper parts of the river, sinking quickly to the bottom, where their valuables were out of the grasp of looters.
At the time of the battle, northern Europe seems to have been devoid of towns or even small villages. As far as archaeologists can tell, people here were loosely connected culturally to Scandinavia and lived with their extended families on individual farmsteads, with a population density of fewer than five people per square kilometer. The closest known large settlement around this time is more than 350 kilometers to the southeast, in Watenstedt. It was a landscape not unlike agrarian parts of Europe today, except without roads, telephones, or radio.
And yet chemical tracers in the remains suggest that most of the Tollense warriors came from hundreds of kilometers away. The isotopes in your teeth reflect those in the food and water you ingest during childhood, which in turn mirror the surrounding geology—a marker of where you grew up. Retired University of Wisconsin, Madison, archaeologist Doug Price analyzed strontium, oxygen, and carbon isotopes in 20 teeth from Tollense. Just a few showed values typical of the northern European plain, which sprawls from Holland to Poland. The other teeth came from farther afield, although Price can’t yet pin down exactly where. “The range of isotope values is really large,” he says. “We can make a good argument that the dead came from a lot of different places.”
Further clues come from isotopes of another element, nitrogen, which reflect diet. Nitrogen isotopes in teeth from some of the men suggest they ate a diet heavy in millet, a crop more common at the time in southern than northern Europe.
Ancient DNA could potentially reveal much more: When compared to other Bronze Age samples from around Europe at this time, it could point to the homelands of the warriors as well as such traits as eye and hair color. Genetic analysis is just beginning, but so far it supports the notion of far-flung origins. DNA from teeth suggests some warriors are related to modern southern Europeans and others to people living in modern-day Poland and Scandinavia. “This is not a bunch of local idiots,” says University of Mainz geneticist Joachim Burger. “It’s a highly diverse population.”
As University of Aarhus’s Vandkilde puts it: “It’s an army like the one described in Homeric epics, made up of smaller war bands that gathered to sack Troy”—an event thought to have happened fewer than 100 years later, in 1184 B.C.E. That suggests an unexpectedly widespread social organization, Jantzen says. “To organize a battle like this over tremendous distances and gather all these people in one place was a tremendous accomplishment,” he says.
So far the team has published only a handful of peer-reviewed papers. With excavations stopped, pending more funding, they’re writing up publications now. But archaeologists familiar with the project say the implications are dramatic. Tollense could force a re-evaluation of the whole period in the area from the Baltic to the Mediterranean, says archaeologist Kristian Kristiansen of the University of Gothenburg in Sweden. “It opens the door to a lot of new evidence for the way Bronze Age societies were organized,” he says.
For example, strong evidence suggests this wasn’t the first battle for these men. Twenty-seven percent of the skeletons show signs of healed traumas from earlier fights, including three skulls with healed fractures. “It’s hard to tell the reason for the injuries, but these don’t look like your typical young farmers,” Jantzen says.
Standardized metal weaponry and the remains of the horses, which were found intermingled with the human bones at one spot, suggest that at least some of the combatants were well-equipped and well-trained. “They weren’t farmer-soldiers who went out every few years to brawl,” Terberger says. “These are professional fighters.”
Body armor and shields emerged in northern Europe in the centuries just before the Tollense conflict and may have necessitated a warrior class. “If you fight with body armor and helmet and corselet, you need daily training or you can’t move,” Hansen says. That’s why, for example, the biblical David—a shepherd—refused to don a suit of armor and bronze helmet before fighting Goliath. “This kind of training is the beginning of a specialized group of warriors,” Hansen says. At Tollense, these bronze-wielding, mounted warriors might have been a sort of officer class, presiding over grunts bearing simpler weapons.
But why did so much military force converge on a narrow river valley in northern Germany? Kristiansen says this period seems to have been an era of significant upheaval from the Mediterranean to the Baltic. In Greece, the sophisticated Mycenaean civilization collapsed around the time of the Tollense battle; in Egypt, pharaohs boasted of besting the “Sea People,” marauders from far-off lands who toppled the neighboring Hittites. And not long after Tollense, the scattered farmsteads of northern Europe gave way to concentrated, heavily fortified settlements, once seen only to the south. “Around 1200 B.C.E. there’s a radical change in the direction societies and cultures are heading,” Vandkilde says. “Tollense fits into a period when we have increased warfare everywhere.”
Tollense looks like a first step toward a way of life that is with us still. From the scale and brutality of the battle to the presence of a warrior class wielding sophisticated weapons, the events of that long-ago day are linked to more familiar and recent conflicts. “It could be the first evidence of a turning point in social organization and warfare in Europe,” Vandkilde says.
has become more of a general history forum, (when we’re not
shitposting…) so I felt it was reasonably on-topic;
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/slaughter-bridge-uncovering-colossal-bronze-age-battle
(also pics and link to podcast)
Slaughter at the bridge: Uncovering a colossal Bronze Age battle
By Andrew Curry
Mar. 24, 2016
“They weren't farmer-soldiers who went out every few years to brawl. These are professional fighters.”
— Thomas Terberger, archaeologist at the Lower Saxony State Service for Cultural Heritage —
About 3200 years ago, two armies clashed at a river crossing near the Baltic Sea. The confrontation can’t be found in any history books—the written word didn’t become common in these parts for another 2000 years—but this was no skirmish between local clans. Thousands of warriors came together in a brutal struggle, perhaps fought on a single day, using weapons crafted from wood, flint, and bronze, a metal that was then the height of military technology.
Struggling to find solid footing on the banks of the Tollense River, a narrow ribbon of water that flows through the marshes of northern Germany toward the Baltic Sea, the armies fought hand-to-hand, maiming and killing with war clubs, spears, swords, and knives. Bronze- and flint-tipped arrows were loosed at close range, piercing skulls and lodging deep into the bones of young men. Horses belonging to high-ranking warriors crumpled into the muck, fatally speared. Not everyone stood their ground in the melee: Some warriors broke and ran, and were struck down from behind.
When the fighting was through, hundreds lay dead, littering the swampy valley. Some bodies were stripped of their valuables and left bobbing in shallow ponds; others sank to the bottom, protected from plundering by a meter or two of water. Peat slowly settled over the bones. Within centuries, the entire battle was forgotten.
In 1996, an amateur archaeologist found a single upper arm bone sticking out of the steep riverbank—the first clue that the Tollense Valley, about 120 kilometers north of Berlin, concealed a gruesome secret. A flint arrowhead was firmly embedded in one end of the bone, prompting archaeologists to dig a small test excavation that yielded more bones, a bashed-in skull, and a 73-centimeter club resembling a baseball bat. The artifacts all were radiocarbon-dated to about 1250 B.C.E., suggesting they stemmed from a single episode during Europe’s Bronze Age.
Now, after a series of excavations between 2009 and 2015, researchers have begun to understand the battle and its startling implications for Bronze Age society. Along a 3-kilometer stretch of the Tollense River, archaeologists from the Mecklenburg-Vorpommern Department of Historic Preservation (MVDHP) and the University of Greifswald (UG) have unearthed wooden clubs, bronze spearheads, and flint and bronze arrowheads. They have also found bones in extraordinary numbers: the remains of at least five horses and more than 100 men. Bones from hundreds more may remain unexcavated, and thousands of others may have fought but survived.
“If our hypothesis is correct that all of the finds belong to the same event, we’re dealing with a conflict of a scale hitherto completely unknown north of the Alps,” says dig co-director Thomas Terberger, an archaeologist at the Lower Saxony State Service for Cultural Heritage in Hannover. “There’s nothing to compare it to.” It may even be the earliest direct evidence—with weapons and warriors together—of a battle this size anywhere in the ancient world.
Northern Europe in the Bronze Age was long dismissed as a backwater, overshadowed by more sophisticated civilizations in the Near East and Greece. Bronze itself, created in the Near East around 3200 B.C.E., took 1000 years to arrive here. But Tollense’s scale suggests more organization—and more violence—than once thought. “We had considered scenarios of raids, with small groups of young men killing and stealing food, but to imagine such a big battle with thousands of people is very surprising,” says Svend Hansen, head of the German Archaeological Institute’s (DAI’s) Eurasia Department in Berlin. The well-preserved bones and artifacts add detail to this picture of Bronze Age sophistication, pointing to the existence of a trained warrior class and suggesting that people from across Europe joined the bloody fray.
There’s little disagreement now that Tollense is something special. “When it comes to the Bronze Age, we’ve been missing a smoking gun, where we have a battlefield and dead people and weapons all together,” says University College Dublin (UCD) archaeologist Barry Molloy. “This is that smoking gun.”
The lakeside hunting lodge called Schloss Wiligrad was built at the turn of the 19th century, deep in a forest 14 kilometers north of Schwerin, the capital of the northern German state of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. Today, the drafty pile is home to both the state’s department of historic preservation and a small local art museum.
In a high-ceilinged chamber on the castle’s second floor, tall windows look out on a fog-shrouded lake. Inside, pale winter light illuminates dozens of skulls arranged on shelves and tables. In the center of the room, long leg bones and short ribs lie in serried ranks on tables; more remains are stored in cardboard boxes stacked on metal shelves reaching almost to the ceiling. The bones take up so much space there’s barely room to walk.
When the first of these finds was excavated in 1996, it wasn’t even clear that Tollense was a battlefield. Some archaeologists suggested the skeletons might be from a flooded cemetery, or that they had accumulated over centuries.
There was reason for skepticism. Before Tollense, direct evidence of large-scale violence in the Bronze Age was scanty, especially in this region. Historical accounts from the Near East and Greece described epic battles, but few artifacts remained to corroborate these boastful accounts. “Even in Egypt, despite hearing many tales of war, we never find such substantial archaeological evidence of its participants and victims,” UCD’s Molloy says.
In Bronze Age Europe, even the historical accounts of war were lacking, and all investigators had to go on were weapons in ceremonial burials and a handful of mass graves with unmistakable evidence of violence, such as decapitated bodies or arrowheads embedded in bones. Before the 1990s, “for a long time we didn’t really believe in war in prehistory,” DAI’s Hansen says. The grave goods were explained as prestige objects or symbols of power rather than actual weapons. “Most people thought ancient society was peaceful, and that Bronze Age males were concerned with trading and so on,” says Helle Vandkilde, an archaeologist at Aarhus University in Denmark. “Very few talked about warfare.”
The 10,000 bones in this room—what’s left of Tollense’s losers—changed all that. They were found in dense caches: In one spot, 1478 bones, among them 20 skulls, were packed into an area of just 12 square meters. Archaeologists think the bodies landed or were dumped in shallow ponds, where the motion of the water mixed up bones from different individuals. By counting specific, singular bones—skulls and femurs, for example—UG forensic anthropologists Ute Brinker and Annemarie Schramm identified a minimum of 130 individuals, almost all of them men, most between the ages of 20 and 30.
The number suggests the scale of the battle. “We have 130 people, minimum, and five horses. And we’ve only opened 450 square meters. That’s 10% of the find layer, at most, maybe just 3% or 4%,” says Detlef Jantzen, chief archaeologist at MVDHP. “If we excavated the whole area, we might have 750 people. That’s incredible for the Bronze Age.” In what they admit are back-of-the-envelope estimates, he and Terberger argue that if one in five of the battle’s participants was killed and left on the battlefield, that could mean almost 4000 warriors took part in the fighting.
Brinker, the forensic anthropologist in charge of analyzing the remains, says the wetness and chemical composition of the Tollense Valley’s soil preserved the bones almost perfectly. “We can reconstruct exactly what happened,” she says, picking up a rib with two tiny, V-shaped cuts on one edge. “These cut marks on the rib show he was stabbed twice in the same place. We have a lot of them, often multiple marks on the same rib.”
Scanning the bones using microscopic computer tomography at a materials science institute in Berlin and the University of Rostock has yielded detailed, 3D images of these injuries. Now, archaeologists are identifying the weapons responsible by matching the images to scans of weapons found at Tollense or in contemporary graves elsewhere in Europe. Diamond-shaped holes in bones, for example, match the distinctive shape of bronze arrowheads found on the battlefield. (Bronze artifacts are found more often than flint at Tollense, perhaps because metal detectors were used to comb spoil piles for artifacts.)
The bone scans have also sharpened the picture of how the battle unfolded, Terberger says. In x-rays, the upper arm bone with an embedded arrowhead—the one that triggered the discovery of the battlefield—seemed to show signs of healing. In a 2011 paper in Antiquity, the team suggested that the man sustained a wound early in the battle but was able to fight on for days or weeks before dying, which could mean that the conflict wasn’t a single clash but a series of skirmishes that dragged out for several weeks.
Microscopic inspection of that wound told a different story: What initially looked like healing—an opaque lining around the arrowhead on an x-ray—was, in fact, a layer of shattered bone, compressed by a single impact that was probably fatal. “That let us revise the idea that this took place over weeks,” Terberger says. So far no bodies show healed wounds, making it likely the battle happened in just a day, or a few at most. “If we are dealing with a single event rather than skirmishes over several weeks, it has a great impact on our interpretation of the scale of the conflict.”
In the last year, a team of engineers in Hamburg has used techniques developed to model stresses on aircraft parts to understand the kinds of blows the soldiers suffered. For example, archaeologists at first thought that a fighter whose femur had snapped close to the hip joint must have fallen from a horse. The injury resembled those that result today from a motorcycle crash or equestrian accident.
But the modeling told a different story. Melanie Schwinning and Hella Harten-Buga, University of Hamburg archaeologists and engineers, took into account the physical properties of bone and Bronze Age weapons, along with examples of injuries from horse falls. An experimental archaeologist also plunged recreated flint and bronze points into dead pigs and recorded the damage.
Schwinning and Harten-Buga say a bronze spearhead hitting the bone at a sharp downward angle would have been able to wedge the femur apart, cracking it in half like a log. “When we modeled it, it looks a lot more like a handheld weapon than a horse fall,” Schwinning says. “We could even recreate the force it would have taken—it’s not actually that much.” They estimate that an average-sized man driving the spear with his body weight would have been enough.
Why the men gathered in this spot to fight and die is another mystery that archaeological evidence is helping unravel. The Tollense Valley here is narrow, just 50 meters wide in some spots. Parts are swampy, whereas others offer firm ground and solid footing. The spot may have been a sort of choke point for travelers journeying across the northern European plain.
In 2013, geomagnetic surveys revealed evidence of a 120-meter-long bridge or causeway stretching across the valley. Excavated over two dig seasons, the submerged structure turned out to be made of wooden posts and stone. Radiocarbon dating showed that although much of the structure predated the battle by more than 500 years, parts of it may have been built or restored around the time of the battle, suggesting the causeway might have been in continuous use for centuries—a well-known landmark.
“The crossing played an important role in the conflict. Maybe one group tried to cross and the other pushed them back,” Terberger says. “The conflict started there and turned into fighting along the river.”
In the aftermath, the victors may have stripped valuables from the bodies they could reach, then tossed the corpses into shallow water, which protected them from carnivores and birds. The bones lack the gnawing and dragging marks typically left by such scavengers.
Elsewhere, the team found human and horse remains buried a meter or two lower, about where the Bronze Age riverbed might have been. Mixed with these remains were gold rings likely worn on the hair, spiral rings of tin perhaps worn on the fingers, and tiny bronze spirals likely used as decorations. These dead must have fallen or been dumped into the deeper parts of the river, sinking quickly to the bottom, where their valuables were out of the grasp of looters.
At the time of the battle, northern Europe seems to have been devoid of towns or even small villages. As far as archaeologists can tell, people here were loosely connected culturally to Scandinavia and lived with their extended families on individual farmsteads, with a population density of fewer than five people per square kilometer. The closest known large settlement around this time is more than 350 kilometers to the southeast, in Watenstedt. It was a landscape not unlike agrarian parts of Europe today, except without roads, telephones, or radio.
And yet chemical tracers in the remains suggest that most of the Tollense warriors came from hundreds of kilometers away. The isotopes in your teeth reflect those in the food and water you ingest during childhood, which in turn mirror the surrounding geology—a marker of where you grew up. Retired University of Wisconsin, Madison, archaeologist Doug Price analyzed strontium, oxygen, and carbon isotopes in 20 teeth from Tollense. Just a few showed values typical of the northern European plain, which sprawls from Holland to Poland. The other teeth came from farther afield, although Price can’t yet pin down exactly where. “The range of isotope values is really large,” he says. “We can make a good argument that the dead came from a lot of different places.”
Further clues come from isotopes of another element, nitrogen, which reflect diet. Nitrogen isotopes in teeth from some of the men suggest they ate a diet heavy in millet, a crop more common at the time in southern than northern Europe.
Ancient DNA could potentially reveal much more: When compared to other Bronze Age samples from around Europe at this time, it could point to the homelands of the warriors as well as such traits as eye and hair color. Genetic analysis is just beginning, but so far it supports the notion of far-flung origins. DNA from teeth suggests some warriors are related to modern southern Europeans and others to people living in modern-day Poland and Scandinavia. “This is not a bunch of local idiots,” says University of Mainz geneticist Joachim Burger. “It’s a highly diverse population.”
As University of Aarhus’s Vandkilde puts it: “It’s an army like the one described in Homeric epics, made up of smaller war bands that gathered to sack Troy”—an event thought to have happened fewer than 100 years later, in 1184 B.C.E. That suggests an unexpectedly widespread social organization, Jantzen says. “To organize a battle like this over tremendous distances and gather all these people in one place was a tremendous accomplishment,” he says.
So far the team has published only a handful of peer-reviewed papers. With excavations stopped, pending more funding, they’re writing up publications now. But archaeologists familiar with the project say the implications are dramatic. Tollense could force a re-evaluation of the whole period in the area from the Baltic to the Mediterranean, says archaeologist Kristian Kristiansen of the University of Gothenburg in Sweden. “It opens the door to a lot of new evidence for the way Bronze Age societies were organized,” he says.
For example, strong evidence suggests this wasn’t the first battle for these men. Twenty-seven percent of the skeletons show signs of healed traumas from earlier fights, including three skulls with healed fractures. “It’s hard to tell the reason for the injuries, but these don’t look like your typical young farmers,” Jantzen says.
Standardized metal weaponry and the remains of the horses, which were found intermingled with the human bones at one spot, suggest that at least some of the combatants were well-equipped and well-trained. “They weren’t farmer-soldiers who went out every few years to brawl,” Terberger says. “These are professional fighters.”
Body armor and shields emerged in northern Europe in the centuries just before the Tollense conflict and may have necessitated a warrior class. “If you fight with body armor and helmet and corselet, you need daily training or you can’t move,” Hansen says. That’s why, for example, the biblical David—a shepherd—refused to don a suit of armor and bronze helmet before fighting Goliath. “This kind of training is the beginning of a specialized group of warriors,” Hansen says. At Tollense, these bronze-wielding, mounted warriors might have been a sort of officer class, presiding over grunts bearing simpler weapons.
But why did so much military force converge on a narrow river valley in northern Germany? Kristiansen says this period seems to have been an era of significant upheaval from the Mediterranean to the Baltic. In Greece, the sophisticated Mycenaean civilization collapsed around the time of the Tollense battle; in Egypt, pharaohs boasted of besting the “Sea People,” marauders from far-off lands who toppled the neighboring Hittites. And not long after Tollense, the scattered farmsteads of northern Europe gave way to concentrated, heavily fortified settlements, once seen only to the south. “Around 1200 B.C.E. there’s a radical change in the direction societies and cultures are heading,” Vandkilde says. “Tollense fits into a period when we have increased warfare everywhere.”
Tollense looks like a first step toward a way of life that is with us still. From the scale and brutality of the battle to the presence of a warrior class wielding sophisticated weapons, the events of that long-ago day are linked to more familiar and recent conflicts. “It could be the first evidence of a turning point in social organization and warfare in Europe,” Vandkilde says.
Tiglath
Aug 3, 2016, 5:40:40 PM8/3/16
to
Certainly not shitposting.
It makes you wonder though...
"Most people thought ancient society was peaceful"
Times with no police, mere custom law, and less civil-ization suggest
peaceful society?
I don't understand the shock at finding battle remains. It's unusual certainly
to have something so large be so well preserved, but the fact that people
made war in large groups? Give me a break.
Roge
Aug 3, 2016, 10:01:31 PM8/3/16
to
"Ed Stasiak" <esta...@att.net> wrote in message
news:ab19c64f-5bce-499b...@googlegroups.com...
Interesting article and while not medieval in nature, this group
has become more of a general history forum, (when we're not
shitposting.) so I felt it was reasonably on-topic;
has become more of a general history forum, (when we're not
Yes , interesting examples of early shillalaghs made of the same wood.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shillelagh_(club)
Roge
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/slaughter-bridge-uncovering-colossal-bronze-age-battle
(also pics and link to podcast)
Slaughter at the bridge: Uncovering a colossal Bronze Age battle
By Andrew Curry
Mar. 24, 2016
"They weren't farmer-soldiers who went out every few years to brawl. These
are professional fighters."
Cultural Heritage -
About 3200 years ago, two armies clashed at a river crossing near the Baltic
didn't become common in these parts for another 2000 years-but this was no
skirmish between local clans. Thousands of warriors came together in a
brutal struggle, perhaps fought on a single day, using weapons crafted from
wood, flint, and bronze, a metal that was then the height of military
technology.
Struggling to find solid footing on the banks of the Tollense River, a
narrow ribbon of water that flows through the marshes of northern Germany
toward the Baltic Sea, the armies fought hand-to-hand, maiming and killing
with war clubs, spears, swords, and knives. Bronze- and flint-tipped arrows
were loosed at close range, piercing skulls and lodging deep into the bones
of young men. Horses belonging to high-ranking warriors crumpled into the
muck, fatally speared. Not everyone stood their ground in the melee: Some
warriors broke and ran, and were struck down from behind.
When the fighting was through, hundreds lay dead, littering the swampy
valley. Some bodies were stripped of their valuables and left bobbing in
shallow ponds; others sank to the bottom, protected from plundering by a
meter or two of water. Peat slowly settled over the bones. Within centuries,
the entire battle was forgotten.
In 1996, an amateur archaeologist found a single upper arm bone sticking out
of the steep riverbank-the first clue that the Tollense Valley, about 120
brutal struggle, perhaps fought on a single day, using weapons crafted from
wood, flint, and bronze, a metal that was then the height of military
technology.
Struggling to find solid footing on the banks of the Tollense River, a
narrow ribbon of water that flows through the marshes of northern Germany
toward the Baltic Sea, the armies fought hand-to-hand, maiming and killing
with war clubs, spears, swords, and knives. Bronze- and flint-tipped arrows
were loosed at close range, piercing skulls and lodging deep into the bones
of young men. Horses belonging to high-ranking warriors crumpled into the
muck, fatally speared. Not everyone stood their ground in the melee: Some
warriors broke and ran, and were struck down from behind.
When the fighting was through, hundreds lay dead, littering the swampy
valley. Some bodies were stripped of their valuables and left bobbing in
shallow ponds; others sank to the bottom, protected from plundering by a
meter or two of water. Peat slowly settled over the bones. Within centuries,
the entire battle was forgotten.
In 1996, an amateur archaeologist found a single upper arm bone sticking out
kilometers north of Berlin, concealed a gruesome secret. A flint arrowhead
was firmly embedded in one end of the bone, prompting archaeologists to dig
a small test excavation that yielded more bones, a bashed-in skull, and a
73-centimeter club resembling a baseball bat. The artifacts all were
radiocarbon-dated to about 1250 B.C.E., suggesting they stemmed from a
single episode during Europe's Bronze Age.
Now, after a series of excavations between 2009 and 2015, researchers have
begun to understand the battle and its startling implications for Bronze Age
society. Along a 3-kilometer stretch of the Tollense River, archaeologists
from the Mecklenburg-Vorpommern Department of Historic Preservation (MVDHP)
and the University of Greifswald (UG) have unearthed wooden clubs, bronze
spearheads, and flint and bronze arrowheads. They have also found bones in
extraordinary numbers: the remains of at least five horses and more than 100
men. Bones from hundreds more may remain unexcavated, and thousands of
others may have fought but survived.
"If our hypothesis is correct that all of the finds belong to the same
event, we're dealing with a conflict of a scale hitherto completely unknown
north of the Alps," says dig co-director Thomas Terberger, an archaeologist
at the Lower Saxony State Service for Cultural Heritage in Hannover. "There's
nothing to compare it to." It may even be the earliest direct evidence-with
was firmly embedded in one end of the bone, prompting archaeologists to dig
a small test excavation that yielded more bones, a bashed-in skull, and a
73-centimeter club resembling a baseball bat. The artifacts all were
radiocarbon-dated to about 1250 B.C.E., suggesting they stemmed from a
single episode during Europe's Bronze Age.
Now, after a series of excavations between 2009 and 2015, researchers have
begun to understand the battle and its startling implications for Bronze Age
society. Along a 3-kilometer stretch of the Tollense River, archaeologists
from the Mecklenburg-Vorpommern Department of Historic Preservation (MVDHP)
and the University of Greifswald (UG) have unearthed wooden clubs, bronze
spearheads, and flint and bronze arrowheads. They have also found bones in
extraordinary numbers: the remains of at least five horses and more than 100
men. Bones from hundreds more may remain unexcavated, and thousands of
others may have fought but survived.
"If our hypothesis is correct that all of the finds belong to the same
event, we're dealing with a conflict of a scale hitherto completely unknown
north of the Alps," says dig co-director Thomas Terberger, an archaeologist
at the Lower Saxony State Service for Cultural Heritage in Hannover. "There's
weapons and warriors together-of a battle this size anywhere in the ancient
world.
Northern Europe in the Bronze Age was long dismissed as a backwater,
overshadowed by more sophisticated civilizations in the Near East and
Greece. Bronze itself, created in the Near East around 3200 B.C.E., took
1000 years to arrive here. But Tollense's scale suggests more
organization-and more violence-than once thought. "We had considered
Northern Europe in the Bronze Age was long dismissed as a backwater,
overshadowed by more sophisticated civilizations in the Near East and
Greece. Bronze itself, created in the Near East around 3200 B.C.E., took
1000 years to arrive here. But Tollense's scale suggests more
that. They were found in dense caches: In one spot, 1478 bones, among them
20 skulls, were packed into an area of just 12 square meters. Archaeologists
think the bodies landed or were dumped in shallow ponds, where the motion of
the water mixed up bones from different individuals. By counting specific,
singular bones-skulls and femurs, for example-UG forensic anthropologists
20 skulls, were packed into an area of just 12 square meters. Archaeologists
think the bodies landed or were dumped in shallow ponds, where the motion of
the water mixed up bones from different individuals. By counting specific,
one that triggered the discovery of the battlefield-seemed to show signs of
healing. In a 2011 paper in Antiquity, the team suggested that the man
sustained a wound early in the battle but was able to fight on for days or
weeks before dying, which could mean that the conflict wasn't a single clash
but a series of skirmishes that dragged out for several weeks.
Microscopic inspection of that wound told a different story: What initially
looked like healing-an opaque lining around the arrowhead on an x-ray-was,
sustained a wound early in the battle but was able to fight on for days or
weeks before dying, which could mean that the conflict wasn't a single clash
but a series of skirmishes that dragged out for several weeks.
Microscopic inspection of that wound told a different story: What initially
in fact, a layer of shattered bone, compressed by a single impact that was
probably fatal. "That let us revise the idea that this took place over
weeks," Terberger says. So far no bodies show healed wounds, making it
likely the battle happened in just a day, or a few at most. "If we are
dealing with a single event rather than skirmishes over several weeks, it
has a great impact on our interpretation of the scale of the conflict."
In the last year, a team of engineers in Hamburg has used techniques
developed to model stresses on aircraft parts to understand the kinds of
blows the soldiers suffered. For example, archaeologists at first thought
that a fighter whose femur had snapped close to the hip joint must have
fallen from a horse. The injury resembled those that result today from a
motorcycle crash or equestrian accident.
But the modeling told a different story. Melanie Schwinning and Hella
Harten-Buga, University of Hamburg archaeologists and engineers, took into
account the physical properties of bone and Bronze Age weapons, along with
examples of injuries from horse falls. An experimental archaeologist also
plunged recreated flint and bronze points into dead pigs and recorded the
damage.
Schwinning and Harten-Buga say a bronze spearhead hitting the bone at a
sharp downward angle would have been able to wedge the femur apart, cracking
it in half like a log. "When we modeled it, it looks a lot more like a
handheld weapon than a horse fall," Schwinning says. "We could even recreate
the force it would have taken-it's not actually that much." They estimate
probably fatal. "That let us revise the idea that this took place over
weeks," Terberger says. So far no bodies show healed wounds, making it
likely the battle happened in just a day, or a few at most. "If we are
dealing with a single event rather than skirmishes over several weeks, it
has a great impact on our interpretation of the scale of the conflict."
In the last year, a team of engineers in Hamburg has used techniques
developed to model stresses on aircraft parts to understand the kinds of
blows the soldiers suffered. For example, archaeologists at first thought
that a fighter whose femur had snapped close to the hip joint must have
fallen from a horse. The injury resembled those that result today from a
motorcycle crash or equestrian accident.
But the modeling told a different story. Melanie Schwinning and Hella
Harten-Buga, University of Hamburg archaeologists and engineers, took into
account the physical properties of bone and Bronze Age weapons, along with
examples of injuries from horse falls. An experimental archaeologist also
plunged recreated flint and bronze points into dead pigs and recorded the
damage.
Schwinning and Harten-Buga say a bronze spearhead hitting the bone at a
sharp downward angle would have been able to wedge the femur apart, cracking
it in half like a log. "When we modeled it, it looks a lot more like a
handheld weapon than a horse fall," Schwinning says. "We could even recreate
that an average-sized man driving the spear with his body weight would have
been enough.
Why the men gathered in this spot to fight and die is another mystery that
archaeological evidence is helping unravel. The Tollense Valley here is
narrow, just 50 meters wide in some spots. Parts are swampy, whereas others
offer firm ground and solid footing. The spot may have been a sort of choke
point for travelers journeying across the northern European plain.
In 2013, geomagnetic surveys revealed evidence of a 120-meter-long bridge or
causeway stretching across the valley. Excavated over two dig seasons, the
submerged structure turned out to be made of wooden posts and stone.
Radiocarbon dating showed that although much of the structure predated the
battle by more than 500 years, parts of it may have been built or restored
around the time of the battle, suggesting the causeway might have been in
continuous use for centuries-a well-known landmark.
been enough.
Why the men gathered in this spot to fight and die is another mystery that
archaeological evidence is helping unravel. The Tollense Valley here is
narrow, just 50 meters wide in some spots. Parts are swampy, whereas others
offer firm ground and solid footing. The spot may have been a sort of choke
point for travelers journeying across the northern European plain.
In 2013, geomagnetic surveys revealed evidence of a 120-meter-long bridge or
causeway stretching across the valley. Excavated over two dig seasons, the
submerged structure turned out to be made of wooden posts and stone.
Radiocarbon dating showed that although much of the structure predated the
battle by more than 500 years, parts of it may have been built or restored
around the time of the battle, suggesting the causeway might have been in
University of Wisconsin, Madison, archaeologist Doug Price analyzed
strontium, oxygen, and carbon isotopes in 20 teeth from Tollense. Just a few
showed values typical of the northern European plain, which sprawls from
Holland to Poland. The other teeth came from farther afield, although Price
can't yet pin down exactly where. "The range of isotope values is really
large," he says. "We can make a good argument that the dead came from a lot
of different places."
Further clues come from isotopes of another element, nitrogen, which reflect
diet. Nitrogen isotopes in teeth from some of the men suggest they ate a
diet heavy in millet, a crop more common at the time in southern than
northern Europe.
Ancient DNA could potentially reveal much more: When compared to other
Bronze Age samples from around Europe at this time, it could point to the
homelands of the warriors as well as such traits as eye and hair color.
Genetic analysis is just beginning, but so far it supports the notion of
far-flung origins. DNA from teeth suggests some warriors are related to
modern southern Europeans and others to people living in modern-day Poland
and Scandinavia. "This is not a bunch of local idiots," says University of
Mainz geneticist Joachim Burger. "It's a highly diverse population."
As University of Aarhus's Vandkilde puts it: "It's an army like the one
described in Homeric epics, made up of smaller war bands that gathered to
sack Troy"-an event thought to have happened fewer than 100 years later, in
strontium, oxygen, and carbon isotopes in 20 teeth from Tollense. Just a few
showed values typical of the northern European plain, which sprawls from
Holland to Poland. The other teeth came from farther afield, although Price
can't yet pin down exactly where. "The range of isotope values is really
large," he says. "We can make a good argument that the dead came from a lot
of different places."
Further clues come from isotopes of another element, nitrogen, which reflect
diet. Nitrogen isotopes in teeth from some of the men suggest they ate a
diet heavy in millet, a crop more common at the time in southern than
northern Europe.
Ancient DNA could potentially reveal much more: When compared to other
Bronze Age samples from around Europe at this time, it could point to the
homelands of the warriors as well as such traits as eye and hair color.
Genetic analysis is just beginning, but so far it supports the notion of
far-flung origins. DNA from teeth suggests some warriors are related to
modern southern Europeans and others to people living in modern-day Poland
and Scandinavia. "This is not a bunch of local idiots," says University of
Mainz geneticist Joachim Burger. "It's a highly diverse population."
As University of Aarhus's Vandkilde puts it: "It's an army like the one
described in Homeric epics, made up of smaller war bands that gathered to
Robert Mulain
Aug 4, 2016, 10:42:45 AM8/4/16
to
The thing about actual battles is that they left so few traces in the old days - even when near or in well established towns. No shell holes, mass destruction of long established or sturdy building etc. Just a folk memory sometimes. My great personal interest is Barnet (1471), and the only traces that remain to this day are part of a moat (manor house long gone, though I've a few bricks and tiles) - and it wasn't even mentioned in the spartan, vague accounts.
There are however some 2500 odd bodies still buried there, and the remains of a chantry chapel.... but can I get anyone to investigate or dig? No. I would do it myself, but can't even get permission, so there they stay! A bit much for my poor old back anyway, so maybe just as well....
Ed Stasiak
Aug 4, 2016, 4:22:21 PM8/4/16
to
> Tiglath
matriarchal “Mother Goddess” worshiping societies but more so that,
there appears (from DNA evidence) to have been people from all over
Europe involved in this battle, which suggests much more extensive
and regular contacts between different Bronze Age peoples.
>
> I don't understand the shock at finding battle remains. It's unusual certainly
> to have something so large be so well preserved, but the fact that people
> made war in large groups? Give me a break.
I think part of it the fashionable view that it was a time of peace loving,
> I don't understand the shock at finding battle remains. It's unusual certainly
> to have something so large be so well preserved, but the fact that people
> made war in large groups? Give me a break.
matriarchal “Mother Goddess” worshiping societies but more so that,
there appears (from DNA evidence) to have been people from all over
Europe involved in this battle, which suggests much more extensive
and regular contacts between different Bronze Age peoples.
Ed Stasiak
Aug 4, 2016, 4:23:34 PM8/4/16
to
> Roge
that looks exactly like one of the shillelaghs at the Wiki page.
>
> Yes , interesting examples of early shillalaghs made of the same wood.
There’s a pic in the article with a 3,000+ year old croquet mallet type club
> Yes , interesting examples of early shillalaghs made of the same wood.
that looks exactly like one of the shillelaghs at the Wiki page.
Ed Stasiak
Aug 4, 2016, 4:25:05 PM8/4/16
to
> Robert Mulain
> > Ed Stasiak
so far and yet so many bodies have already been found, suggesting
this was truly a HUGE battle, maybe on par (or larger) then the Trojan
War that happened around the same time.
> > Ed Stasiak
> >
> > The number suggests the scale of the battle. “We have 130 people,
> > minimum, and five horses. And we’ve only opened 450 square meters.
> > That’s 10% of the find layer, at most, maybe just 3% or 4%,” says Detlef
> > Jantzen, chief archaeologist at MVDHP.
>
> > The number suggests the scale of the battle. “We have 130 people,
> > minimum, and five horses. And we’ve only opened 450 square meters.
> > That’s 10% of the find layer, at most, maybe just 3% or 4%,” says Detlef
> > Jantzen, chief archaeologist at MVDHP.
>
> It makes me wonder how many more great undiscovered battles
> there are, awaiting discovery?
What’s wild is that apparently so little of the site has been investigated
> there are, awaiting discovery?
so far and yet so many bodies have already been found, suggesting
this was truly a HUGE battle, maybe on par (or larger) then the Trojan
War that happened around the same time.
Tiglath
Aug 4, 2016, 4:38:15 PM8/4/16
to
escape the heat or to escape the cold, or to find better land and food.
I think that much has to do with endowing the find with sensationalism it
does not need. The mere fact that so much remains from so long back is plenty
to be excited about and grateful for. They don't need to zing it out with
dubious delights like, "Wow, there was war back then" "Wow, some people had walked 900 miles to go there"
Tiglath
Aug 4, 2016, 4:40:05 PM8/4/16
to
great slaughter.
Robert Mulain
Aug 5, 2016, 7:50:26 AM8/5/16
to
I am particularly aware of them due to my interest in psychic manifestations, though ancient place names are often a good indication of such sites (and sights). Even recently (speaking) 'Bunhill' is a development of 'Bone Hill', which marks the site of the clearance of medieval charnel houses in central London (they needed the room for plague victims).
This site sounds very interesting... but I would warn them that on the battlefield itself, they'll be lucky to find a thing!
Ed Stasiak
Aug 5, 2016, 10:32:20 AM8/5/16
to
> Robert Mulain
> > Ed Stasiak
looted while some still had a bit of jewelry on them, suggesting they were
allies and all were tossed into ponds/swamps, probably because the site
was a river crossing (there’s evidence of a bridge) and nobody wanted
stinky dead bodies laying about?
> > Ed Stasiak
> >
> > What’s wild is that apparently so little of the site has been investigated
> > so far and yet so many bodies have already been found, suggesting
> > this was truly a HUGE battle, maybe on par (or larger) then the Trojan
> > War that happened around the same time.
>
> That would imply that they used 'grave pits' sometimes, after a battle.
> Whether for reasons of ritual, respect or hygiene is a most fascinating
> question. Battles at this sort of age in the UK were, as far as is known,
> usually ended up with the victims being left where they fell (after being
> dutifully pillaged), and tales and legends of great masses of bleached
> bones being left in remote places to the horror of travellers are well
> known.
The article mentions that most bodies (the losers) appear to have been
> > What’s wild is that apparently so little of the site has been investigated
> > so far and yet so many bodies have already been found, suggesting
> > this was truly a HUGE battle, maybe on par (or larger) then the Trojan
> > War that happened around the same time.
>
> That would imply that they used 'grave pits' sometimes, after a battle.
> Whether for reasons of ritual, respect or hygiene is a most fascinating
> question. Battles at this sort of age in the UK were, as far as is known,
> usually ended up with the victims being left where they fell (after being
> dutifully pillaged), and tales and legends of great masses of bleached
> bones being left in remote places to the horror of travellers are well
> known.
looted while some still had a bit of jewelry on them, suggesting they were
allies and all were tossed into ponds/swamps, probably because the site
was a river crossing (there’s evidence of a bridge) and nobody wanted
stinky dead bodies laying about?
Robert Mulain
Aug 9, 2016, 8:48:18 AM8/9/16
to
The injuries detailed indicate a very close quarter, desperate fight, considering the relatively unsophisticated weapons. I wonder who they were, and why they were fighting so desperately?
Ed Stasiak
Aug 10, 2016, 10:36:41 PM8/10/16
to
> Robert Mulain
and that restricted travel and that the location of the battle was a narrow
point along the river, where the higher and drier river banks came together,
allowing for a probable bridge to be built.
Seems like the spot was along a Baltic costal trade route, so maybe the
battle was purely economic, with the winner getting control of the bridge?
But then they mention all kinda people from Europe were involved in the
battle, which you wouldn’t think would be the case if it was just about local
taxes, so maybe it was religious or cultural or over something else?
Sounds like the makings of a cool movie, though.
>
> I wonder who they were, and why they were fighting so desperately?
The article mentions that the region was pretty swampy back in the day
> I wonder who they were, and why they were fighting so desperately?
and that restricted travel and that the location of the battle was a narrow
point along the river, where the higher and drier river banks came together,
allowing for a probable bridge to be built.
Seems like the spot was along a Baltic costal trade route, so maybe the
battle was purely economic, with the winner getting control of the bridge?
But then they mention all kinda people from Europe were involved in the
battle, which you wouldn’t think would be the case if it was just about local
taxes, so maybe it was religious or cultural or over something else?
Sounds like the makings of a cool movie, though.
Tiglath
Aug 11, 2016, 1:15:19 AM8/11/16
to
involved. Like the Teutons or the Cimbri, which are just names but carry
a lot of satisfaction to know because then we think there is hope to find
more about them, but "anonymous" does not cut it.
Sigurdr Volsung
Aug 11, 2016, 1:47:52 AM8/11/16
to
Where it has been said:-
The number suggests the scale of the battle. “We have 130 people, minimum, and five horses. And we’ve only opened 450 square meters. That’s 10% of the find layer, at most, maybe just 3% or 4%,” says Detlef Jantzen, chief archaeologist at MVDHP. “If we excavated the whole area, we might have 750 people. That’s incredible for the Bronze Age.” In what they admitting are back-of-the-envelope estimates, he and Terberger argue that if one in five of the battle’s participants was killed and left on these battlefield, that could mean almost 4000 warriors took part in the fighting.
The numbers have been exaggerated here. Finding only 130 bodies but multiplying this up to 4000 participants in the battle is way OTT. Proper statistical analysis is not done on the backs of envelopes. I might call this a sizeable encounter between warring parties, but I wouldn't make the claims for the numbers involved them seem to have made.
The number suggests the scale of the battle. “We have 130 people, minimum, and five horses. And we’ve only opened 450 square meters. That’s 10% of the find layer, at most, maybe just 3% or 4%,” says Detlef Jantzen, chief archaeologist at MVDHP. “If we excavated the whole area, we might have 750 people. That’s incredible for the Bronze Age.” In what they admitting are back-of-the-envelope estimates, he and Terberger argue that if one in five of the battle’s participants was killed and left on these battlefield, that could mean almost 4000 warriors took part in the fighting.
The numbers have been exaggerated here. Finding only 130 bodies but multiplying this up to 4000 participants in the battle is way OTT. Proper statistical analysis is not done on the backs of envelopes. I might call this a sizeable encounter between warring parties, but I wouldn't make the claims for the numbers involved them seem to have made.
Robert Mulain
Aug 11, 2016, 3:10:16 PM8/11/16
to
Its most interesting feature might well be this aspect, i.e., the support and control of such large, organised armies long before we usually consider such things occured?
Robert Mulain
Aug 11, 2016, 3:11:58 PM8/11/16
to
Robert Mulain
Aug 11, 2016, 3:16:47 PM8/11/16
to
Eric Stevens
Aug 11, 2016, 5:25:50 PM8/11/16
to
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
Tiglath
Aug 11, 2016, 6:36:54 PM8/11/16
to
Sigurdr Volsung
Aug 12, 2016, 1:25:27 AM8/12/16
to
Oh My Gosh! Are you still flying around on your toy time machine, a contrivance having, rather like an Italian WWII tank, one forward gear and five reverse ones, gears which take you forward to November and backwards all the way to the Palaeolithic age when your ancestral life forms roamed the outer woodlands of this planet together with their cousins the Neanderthals. We're going to have a noise abatement order slapped on this gizmo of yours. It's disturbing the neighbourhood. Take it away faroff from around here and go pester another time and place.
Tiglath
Aug 12, 2016, 1:31:01 AM8/12/16
to
On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 1:25:27 AM UTC-4, Sigurdr Volsung wrote:
<>
It must have been a really harsh and nasty place the orphanage where you
grew up. Poor slug. Toyless childhood -> SHM's slug.
Great life.
<>
It must have been a really harsh and nasty place the orphanage where you
grew up. Poor slug. Toyless childhood -> SHM's slug.
Great life.
Robert Mulain
Aug 12, 2016, 3:01:50 AM8/12/16
to
On a more serious note, the Red Injuns (er, I mean 'Native N Americans') did allegedly fight with minimal clothing, as they realised any wounds healed much better and faster without a piece of dirty shirt dragged into the wound. Quite sensible really... I wonder if woad has antiseptic qualities?. I daresay this concern for hygiene didn't apply to the low velocity bullets used by sweaty, dusty cowboys and cavalrymen however.
Eric Stevens
Aug 12, 2016, 5:14:57 AM8/12/16
to
On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 00:01:48 -0700 (PDT), Robert Mulain
"Polybius' Histories describe how the Gaesatae, hired by other
Celtic peoples, the Boii and Insubres as mercenaries to fight the
Romans, stood naked at the head of their army at the Battle of
Telamon in 225BC.[1] Diodorus Siculus reported other instances of
such combat: "Some use iron breast-plates in battle, while others
fight naked, trusting only in the protection which nature
gives."[2] Another possible reason for this was to avoid infection
of wounds caused by contact with contaminated clothing and
debris.[citation needed]
Julius Caesar records in his account of the Gallic War that the
Gauls went into battle naked save for their weapons.
Sometimes the soldiers wore no clothing but were covered in war
paint, a custom that allegedly gave the Picts their name."
>And of course (partially) in Carry On up the Khyber to intimidate the Burpahs... "just imagine the horror, coming at you waving his huge weapon!?" Not that that that would have bothered Kenneth Williams off set methinks.
>
>On a more serious note, the Red Injuns (er, I mean 'Native N Americans') did allegedly fight with minimal clothing, as they realised any wounds healed much better and faster without a piece of dirty shirt dragged into the wound. Quite sensible really... I wonder if woad has antiseptic qualities?. I daresay this concern for hygiene didn't apply to the low velocity bullets used by sweaty, dusty cowboys and cavalrymen however.
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
<robert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, 11 August 2016 22:25:50 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 12:16:46 -0700 (PDT), Robert Mulain
>> <robert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thursday, 11 August 2016 06:47:52 UTC+1, Sigurdr Volsung wrote:
>> >> Where it has been said:-
>> >>
>> >> The number suggests the scale of the battle. “We have 130 people, minimum, and five horses. And we’ve only opened 450 square meters. That’s 10% of the find layer, at most, maybe just 3% or 4%,” says Detlef Jantzen, chief archaeologist at MVDHP. “If we excavated the whole area, we might have 750 people. That’s incredible for the Bronze Age.” In what they admitting are back-of-the-envelope estimates, he and Terberger argue that if one in five of the battle’s participants was killed and left on these battlefield, that could mean almost 4000 warriors took part in the fighting.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> The numbers have been exaggerated here. Finding only 130 bodies but multiplying this up to 4000 participants in the battle is way OTT. Proper statistical analysis is not done on the backs of envelopes. I might call this a sizeable encounter between warring parties, but I wouldn't make the claims for the numbers involved them seem to have made.
>> >
>> >For a battle f that age, with such relatively primitive weapons, I'd say a %20 casualty rate is rather high - unless one side was cut off somehow and massacred without mercy. That could have happened in marshy ground, but with most participants likely unarmoured, or lightly so, I doubt it.
>>
>> Didn't many of them traditionally fight naked?
>
>Only in Braveheart... or in summer.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudity_in_combat
>On Thursday, 11 August 2016 22:25:50 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 12:16:46 -0700 (PDT), Robert Mulain
>> <robert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thursday, 11 August 2016 06:47:52 UTC+1, Sigurdr Volsung wrote:
>> >> Where it has been said:-
>> >>
>> >> The number suggests the scale of the battle. “We have 130 people, minimum, and five horses. And we’ve only opened 450 square meters. That’s 10% of the find layer, at most, maybe just 3% or 4%,” says Detlef Jantzen, chief archaeologist at MVDHP. “If we excavated the whole area, we might have 750 people. That’s incredible for the Bronze Age.” In what they admitting are back-of-the-envelope estimates, he and Terberger argue that if one in five of the battle’s participants was killed and left on these battlefield, that could mean almost 4000 warriors took part in the fighting.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> The numbers have been exaggerated here. Finding only 130 bodies but multiplying this up to 4000 participants in the battle is way OTT. Proper statistical analysis is not done on the backs of envelopes. I might call this a sizeable encounter between warring parties, but I wouldn't make the claims for the numbers involved them seem to have made.
>> >
>> >For a battle f that age, with such relatively primitive weapons, I'd say a %20 casualty rate is rather high - unless one side was cut off somehow and massacred without mercy. That could have happened in marshy ground, but with most participants likely unarmoured, or lightly so, I doubt it.
>>
>> Didn't many of them traditionally fight naked?
>
>Only in Braveheart... or in summer.
"Polybius' Histories describe how the Gaesatae, hired by other
Celtic peoples, the Boii and Insubres as mercenaries to fight the
Romans, stood naked at the head of their army at the Battle of
Telamon in 225BC.[1] Diodorus Siculus reported other instances of
such combat: "Some use iron breast-plates in battle, while others
fight naked, trusting only in the protection which nature
gives."[2] Another possible reason for this was to avoid infection
of wounds caused by contact with contaminated clothing and
debris.[citation needed]
Julius Caesar records in his account of the Gallic War that the
Gauls went into battle naked save for their weapons.
Sometimes the soldiers wore no clothing but were covered in war
paint, a custom that allegedly gave the Picts their name."
>And of course (partially) in Carry On up the Khyber to intimidate the Burpahs... "just imagine the horror, coming at you waving his huge weapon!?" Not that that that would have bothered Kenneth Williams off set methinks.
>
>On a more serious note, the Red Injuns (er, I mean 'Native N Americans') did allegedly fight with minimal clothing, as they realised any wounds healed much better and faster without a piece of dirty shirt dragged into the wound. Quite sensible really... I wonder if woad has antiseptic qualities?. I daresay this concern for hygiene didn't apply to the low velocity bullets used by sweaty, dusty cowboys and cavalrymen however.
Regards,
Eric Stevens
Sigurdr Volsung
Aug 12, 2016, 6:44:18 AM8/12/16
to
Oh My God! It's the Greek woolly-μ helping his friend the Calibaniste from Turdistan. They've drowned their meal of Portuguese caracois, and now feeling sick we have to put up with their vomit. Go throw up preachers.
Sigurdr Volsung
Aug 12, 2016, 6:44:19 AM8/12/16
to
Tiglath
Aug 12, 2016, 11:00:12 AM8/12/16
to
On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 5:14:57 AM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 00:01:48 -0700 (PDT), Robert Mulain
> <robert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, 11 August 2016 22:25:50 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
> >> On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 12:16:46 -0700 (PDT), Robert Mulain
> >> <robert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Thursday, 11 August 2016 06:47:52 UTC+1, Sigurdr Volsung wrote:
> >> >> Where it has been said:-
> >> >>
> >> >> The number suggests the scale of the battle. “We have 130 people, minimum, and five horses. And we’ve only opened 450 square meters. That’s 10% of the find layer, at most, maybe just 3% or 4%,” says Detlef Jantzen, chief archaeologist at MVDHP. “If we excavated the whole area, we might have 750 people. That’s incredible for the Bronze Age.” In what they admitting are back-of-the-envelope estimates, he and Terberger argue that if one in five of the battle’s participants was killed and left on these battlefield, that could mean almost 4000 warriors took part in the fighting.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> The numbers have been exaggerated here. Finding only 130 bodies but multiplying this up to 4000 participants in the battle is way OTT. Proper statistical analysis is not done on the backs of envelopes. I might call this a sizeable encounter between warring parties, but I wouldn't make the claims for the numbers involved them seem to have made.
> >> >
> >> >For a battle f that age, with such relatively primitive weapons, I'd say a %20 casualty rate is rather high - unless one side was cut off somehow and massacred without mercy. That could have happened in marshy ground, but with most participants likely unarmoured, or lightly so, I doubt it.
> >>
> >> Didn't many of them traditionally fight naked?
> >
> >Only in Braveheart... or in summer.
>
> See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudity_in_combat
Totally irrelevant.
> On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 00:01:48 -0700 (PDT), Robert Mulain
> <robert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, 11 August 2016 22:25:50 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
> >> On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 12:16:46 -0700 (PDT), Robert Mulain
> >> <robert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Thursday, 11 August 2016 06:47:52 UTC+1, Sigurdr Volsung wrote:
> >> >> Where it has been said:-
> >> >>
> >> >> The number suggests the scale of the battle. “We have 130 people, minimum, and five horses. And we’ve only opened 450 square meters. That’s 10% of the find layer, at most, maybe just 3% or 4%,” says Detlef Jantzen, chief archaeologist at MVDHP. “If we excavated the whole area, we might have 750 people. That’s incredible for the Bronze Age.” In what they admitting are back-of-the-envelope estimates, he and Terberger argue that if one in five of the battle’s participants was killed and left on these battlefield, that could mean almost 4000 warriors took part in the fighting.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> The numbers have been exaggerated here. Finding only 130 bodies but multiplying this up to 4000 participants in the battle is way OTT. Proper statistical analysis is not done on the backs of envelopes. I might call this a sizeable encounter between warring parties, but I wouldn't make the claims for the numbers involved them seem to have made.
> >> >
> >> >For a battle f that age, with such relatively primitive weapons, I'd say a %20 casualty rate is rather high - unless one side was cut off somehow and massacred without mercy. That could have happened in marshy ground, but with most participants likely unarmoured, or lightly so, I doubt it.
> >>
> >> Didn't many of them traditionally fight naked?
> >
> >Only in Braveheart... or in summer.
>
> See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudity_in_combat
Naked Gauls have nothing to do with what people 900 year prior did in the
Baltic region. Have you ever been north of Berlin? It's not known for
its hot temperatures.
Roman sources ALSO describe the customs of the Germanic people, and they were
not fighting in the nude. That would be a slightly more apposite reference, though not that much since we know next to nothing about these folks that preceded them.
and
Sigurdr Volsung
Aug 12, 2016, 11:15:30 AM8/12/16
to
That's right.
"We know next to nothing about these folks that preceded them."
So why speculate and comment about that which you know nothing?
Our ignorance about these people is only matched and bettered by your total ignorance about anything.
"We know next to nothing about these folks that preceded them."
So why speculate and comment about that which you know nothing?
Our ignorance about these people is only matched and bettered by your total ignorance about anything.
Tiglath
Aug 12, 2016, 12:13:37 PM8/12/16
to
On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 11:15:30 AM UTC-4, Sigurdr Volsung wrote:
> That's right.
>
> "We know next to nothing about these folks that preceded them."
>
> So why speculate and comment about that which you know nothing?
I didn't, asshole. I was answering someone else's speculation.
> That's right.
>
> "We know next to nothing about these folks that preceded them."
>
> So why speculate and comment about that which you know nothing?
Try to keep with the program, mongoloid slug.
Sigurdr Volsung
Aug 12, 2016, 12:45:22 PM8/12/16
to
They were your words!!!!
Tiglath
Aug 12, 2016, 1:08:48 PM8/12/16
to
On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 12:45:22 PM UTC-4, Sigurdr Volsung wrote:
> They were your words!!!!
Go back to your mindsplats, slug, the adults are talking.
> They were your words!!!!
Go back to your mindsplats, slug, the adults are talking.
Tiglath
Aug 12, 2016, 1:10:34 PM8/12/16
to
On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 12:45:22 PM UTC-4, Sigurdr Volsung wrote:
> They were your words!!!!
I say, "Keep up with the program, mongoloid slug."
> They were your words!!!!
And Sigourney feels alluded and answers.
Such a well-trained slug.
Robert Mulain
Aug 12, 2016, 4:17:17 PM8/12/16
to
On Friday, 12 August 2016 16:15:30 UTC+1, Sigurdr Volsung wrote:
> That's right.
>
> "We know next to nothing about these folks that preceded them."
>
> So why speculate and comment about that which you know nothing?
How incredibly negative and stupid. By speculating, commenting and discussing, we on SHM discovered a great deal about fleas and the travel of The Black Death
> That's right.
>
> "We know next to nothing about these folks that preceded them."
>
> So why speculate and comment about that which you know nothing?
- one of the finest achievements I recall. That is what can happen when several specialists, historians and an epidemiologist get together with a couple of folks who think outside the box...
>
> Our ignorance about these people is only matched and bettered by your total
> ignorance about anything.
Eric Stevens
Aug 12, 2016, 8:53:26 PM8/12/16
to
On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 08:00:11 -0700 (PDT), Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net>
wrote:
>On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 5:14:57 AM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 00:01:48 -0700 (PDT), Robert Mulain
>> <robert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thursday, 11 August 2016 22:25:50 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 12:16:46 -0700 (PDT), Robert Mulain
>> >> <robert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Thursday, 11 August 2016 06:47:52 UTC+1, Sigurdr Volsung wrote:
>> >> >> Where it has been said:-
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The number suggests the scale of the battle. “We have 130 people, minimum, and five horses. And we’ve only opened 450 square meters. That’s 10% of the find layer, at most, maybe just 3% or 4%,” says Detlef Jantzen, chief archaeologist at MVDHP. “If we excavated the whole area, we might have 750 people. That’s incredible for the Bronze Age.” In what they admitting are back-of-the-envelope estimates, he and Terberger argue that if one in five of the battle’s participants was killed and left on these battlefield, that could mean almost 4000 warriors took part in the fighting.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The numbers have been exaggerated here. Finding only 130 bodies but multiplying this up to 4000 participants in the battle is way OTT. Proper statistical analysis is not done on the backs of envelopes. I might call this a sizeable encounter between warring parties, but I wouldn't make the claims for the numbers involved them seem to have made.
>> >> >
>> >> >For a battle f that age, with such relatively primitive weapons, I'd say a %20 casualty rate is rather high - unless one side was cut off somehow and massacred without mercy. That could have happened in marshy ground, but with most participants likely unarmoured, or lightly so, I doubt it.
>> >>
>> >> Didn't many of them traditionally fight naked?
>> >
>> >Only in Braveheart... or in summer.
>>
>> See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudity_in_combat
>
>Totally irrelevant.
>
>Naked Gauls have nothing to do with what people 900 year prior did in the
>Baltic region. Have you ever been north of Berlin? It's not known for
>its hot temperatures.
Have you never heard of the Minoan Warm Period?
See http://tinyurl.com/zu6p7ps Even at the tail, it was till warmer
than now.
Regards,
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 5:14:57 AM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 00:01:48 -0700 (PDT), Robert Mulain
>> <robert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thursday, 11 August 2016 22:25:50 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 12:16:46 -0700 (PDT), Robert Mulain
>> >> <robert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Thursday, 11 August 2016 06:47:52 UTC+1, Sigurdr Volsung wrote:
>> >> >> Where it has been said:-
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The number suggests the scale of the battle. “We have 130 people, minimum, and five horses. And we’ve only opened 450 square meters. That’s 10% of the find layer, at most, maybe just 3% or 4%,” says Detlef Jantzen, chief archaeologist at MVDHP. “If we excavated the whole area, we might have 750 people. That’s incredible for the Bronze Age.” In what they admitting are back-of-the-envelope estimates, he and Terberger argue that if one in five of the battle’s participants was killed and left on these battlefield, that could mean almost 4000 warriors took part in the fighting.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The numbers have been exaggerated here. Finding only 130 bodies but multiplying this up to 4000 participants in the battle is way OTT. Proper statistical analysis is not done on the backs of envelopes. I might call this a sizeable encounter between warring parties, but I wouldn't make the claims for the numbers involved them seem to have made.
>> >> >
>> >> >For a battle f that age, with such relatively primitive weapons, I'd say a %20 casualty rate is rather high - unless one side was cut off somehow and massacred without mercy. That could have happened in marshy ground, but with most participants likely unarmoured, or lightly so, I doubt it.
>> >>
>> >> Didn't many of them traditionally fight naked?
>> >
>> >Only in Braveheart... or in summer.
>>
>> See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudity_in_combat
>
>Totally irrelevant.
>
>Naked Gauls have nothing to do with what people 900 year prior did in the
>Baltic region. Have you ever been north of Berlin? It's not known for
>its hot temperatures.
See http://tinyurl.com/zu6p7ps Even at the tail, it was till warmer
than now.
>
>Roman sources ALSO describe the customs of the Germanic people, and they were
>not fighting in the nude. That would be a slightly more apposite reference, though not that much since we know next to nothing about these folks that preceded them.
>
>
>
>
>
>and
>>
>> "Polybius' Histories describe how the Gaesatae, hired by other
>> Celtic peoples, the Boii and Insubres as mercenaries to fight the
>> Romans, stood naked at the head of their army at the Battle of
>> Telamon in 225BC.[1] Diodorus Siculus reported other instances of
>> such combat: "Some use iron breast-plates in battle, while others
>> fight naked, trusting only in the protection which nature
>> gives."[2] Another possible reason for this was to avoid infection
>> of wounds caused by contact with contaminated clothing and
>> debris.[citation needed]
>>
>> Julius Caesar records in his account of the Gallic War that the
>> Gauls went into battle naked save for their weapons.
>>
>> Sometimes the soldiers wore no clothing but were covered in war
>> paint, a custom that allegedly gave the Picts their name."
>>
>>
>> >And of course (partially) in Carry On up the Khyber to intimidate the Burpahs... "just imagine the horror, coming at you waving his huge weapon!?" Not that that that would have bothered Kenneth Williams off set methinks.
>> >
>> >On a more serious note, the Red Injuns (er, I mean 'Native N Americans') did allegedly fight with minimal clothing, as they realised any wounds healed much better and faster without a piece of dirty shirt dragged into the wound. Quite sensible really... I wonder if woad has antiseptic qualities?. I daresay this concern for hygiene didn't apply to the low velocity bullets used by sweaty, dusty cowboys and cavalrymen however.
>> --
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Eric Stevens
--
>Roman sources ALSO describe the customs of the Germanic people, and they were
>not fighting in the nude. That would be a slightly more apposite reference, though not that much since we know next to nothing about these folks that preceded them.
>
>
>
>
>
>and
>>
>> "Polybius' Histories describe how the Gaesatae, hired by other
>> Celtic peoples, the Boii and Insubres as mercenaries to fight the
>> Romans, stood naked at the head of their army at the Battle of
>> Telamon in 225BC.[1] Diodorus Siculus reported other instances of
>> such combat: "Some use iron breast-plates in battle, while others
>> fight naked, trusting only in the protection which nature
>> gives."[2] Another possible reason for this was to avoid infection
>> of wounds caused by contact with contaminated clothing and
>> debris.[citation needed]
>>
>> Julius Caesar records in his account of the Gallic War that the
>> Gauls went into battle naked save for their weapons.
>>
>> Sometimes the soldiers wore no clothing but were covered in war
>> paint, a custom that allegedly gave the Picts their name."
>>
>>
>> >And of course (partially) in Carry On up the Khyber to intimidate the Burpahs... "just imagine the horror, coming at you waving his huge weapon!?" Not that that that would have bothered Kenneth Williams off set methinks.
>> >
>> >On a more serious note, the Red Injuns (er, I mean 'Native N Americans') did allegedly fight with minimal clothing, as they realised any wounds healed much better and faster without a piece of dirty shirt dragged into the wound. Quite sensible really... I wonder if woad has antiseptic qualities?. I daresay this concern for hygiene didn't apply to the low velocity bullets used by sweaty, dusty cowboys and cavalrymen however.
>> --
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Eric Stevens
Regards,
Eric Stevens
Tiglath
Aug 13, 2016, 12:29:47 AM8/13/16
to
On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 8:53:26 PM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
> >>
> >> See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudity_in_combat
> >
> >Totally irrelevant.
> >
> >Naked Gauls have nothing to do with what people 900 year prior did in the
> >Baltic region. Have you ever been north of Berlin? It's not known for
> >its hot temperatures.
>
> Have you never heard of the Minoan Warm Period?
> See http://tinyurl.com/zu6p7ps Even at the tail, it was till warmer
> than now.
There he goes again...
> >>
> >> See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudity_in_combat
> >
> >Totally irrelevant.
> >
> >Naked Gauls have nothing to do with what people 900 year prior did in the
> >Baltic region. Have you ever been north of Berlin? It's not known for
> >its hot temperatures.
>
> Have you never heard of the Minoan Warm Period?
> See http://tinyurl.com/zu6p7ps Even at the tail, it was till warmer
> than now.
The Battle is dated c. 1200.
Which came AFTER the Minoan Warm Period, 1450-1300 BC.
It's idle speculation to divine what people wore on the unknown date of a
battle in the Baltic region. Winters are long and cold and summers are short,
but I am quite sure that prancing in the nude North of Berlin in August
won't kill you, though I haven't tried it.
What we know is that the documented naked warriors were Gauls not Germans.
And before you keep shooting from the hip I recommend you take a quick look
and the link the OP provided.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/slaughter-bridge-uncovering-colossal-bronze-age-battle
Do you see any naked warriors?
Those are the depictions from those who investigate, that is, not janitors,
but scholars, and are the best available approximation to the truth.
Not to mention that some of the objects recovered are thought to be garment
tassels and decorations.
Then Mr. Stevens posts a link to a jumble of images for a google search of the
'minoan warm period.'
Only that as one might expect, Mr. Stevens own evidence contradicts
Mr. Stevens' suggestion that warriors went naked because of the Minoan Warm Period.
A clear chart makes it crystal.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/06/22/climate-and-human-civilization-for-the-past-4000-years/
Again, since change was slow in ancient times, the best chances to surmise what
the tribes involved in that battle were like, is to examine the ancient
descriptions of Germanic peoples.
Tacitus' Germania provides one such, here:
http://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/halsall/source/tacitus1.html
It includes sections on climate and dress.
Roman extensive knowledge of Germans began in the 3rd century BC, almost
a thousand years after the battle, that is a problem, though as I said
change was rather slow in barbarian societies. The biggest change since the
battle would have been the advent of iron weapons, not climate.
Eric Stevens
Aug 13, 2016, 12:56:07 AM8/13/16
to
On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 21:29:46 -0700 (PDT), Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net>
wrote:
>On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 8:53:26 PM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
>
>> >>
>> >> See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudity_in_combat
>> >
>> >Totally irrelevant.
>> >
>> >Naked Gauls have nothing to do with what people 900 year prior did in the
>> >Baltic region. Have you ever been north of Berlin? It's not known for
>> >its hot temperatures.
>>
>> Have you never heard of the Minoan Warm Period?
>> See http://tinyurl.com/zu6p7ps Even at the tail, it was till warmer
>> than now.
>
>There he goes again...
>
>The Battle is dated c. 1200.
>
>Which came AFTER the Minoan Warm Period, 1450-1300 BC.
You had to fudge the dates, didn't you?
understand them?
He can hardly be an expert on the battle clothing of the earlier time.
not uniform in their behaviour.
You should go back to my earlier article which started all this when I
asked Robert Mulai "Didn't many of them traditionally fight naked?"
You are now trying to turn my question into a claim.
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 8:53:26 PM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
>
>> >>
>> >> See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudity_in_combat
>> >
>> >Totally irrelevant.
>> >
>> >Naked Gauls have nothing to do with what people 900 year prior did in the
>> >Baltic region. Have you ever been north of Berlin? It's not known for
>> >its hot temperatures.
>>
>> Have you never heard of the Minoan Warm Period?
>> See http://tinyurl.com/zu6p7ps Even at the tail, it was till warmer
>> than now.
>
>There he goes again...
>
>The Battle is dated c. 1200.
>
>Which came AFTER the Minoan Warm Period, 1450-1300 BC.
>
>It's idle speculation to divine what people wore on the unknown date of a
>battle in the Baltic region. Winters are long and cold and summers are short,
>but I am quite sure that prancing in the nude North of Berlin in August
>won't kill you, though I haven't tried it.
>
>What we know is that the documented naked warriors were Gauls not Germans.
The word 'Gaul' is not mentioned in the article.
>It's idle speculation to divine what people wore on the unknown date of a
>battle in the Baltic region. Winters are long and cold and summers are short,
>but I am quite sure that prancing in the nude North of Berlin in August
>won't kill you, though I haven't tried it.
>
>What we know is that the documented naked warriors were Gauls not Germans.
>
>And before you keep shooting from the hip I recommend you take a quick look
>and the link the OP provided.
>
>http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/slaughter-bridge-uncovering-colossal-bronze-age-battle
>
>Do you see any naked warriors?
Do you see *any* remnants of clothing?
>And before you keep shooting from the hip I recommend you take a quick look
>and the link the OP provided.
>
>http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/slaughter-bridge-uncovering-colossal-bronze-age-battle
>
>Do you see any naked warriors?
>
>Those are the depictions from those who investigate, that is, not janitors,
>but scholars, and are the best available approximation to the truth.
>
>Not to mention that some of the objects recovered are thought to be garment
>tassels and decorations.
>
>Then Mr. Stevens posts a link to a jumble of images for a google search of the
>'minoan warm period.'
>
>Only that as one might expect, Mr. Stevens own evidence contradicts
>Mr. Stevens' suggestion that warriors went naked because of the Minoan Warm Period.
Twisting my words again.
>Those are the depictions from those who investigate, that is, not janitors,
>but scholars, and are the best available approximation to the truth.
>
>Not to mention that some of the objects recovered are thought to be garment
>tassels and decorations.
>
>Then Mr. Stevens posts a link to a jumble of images for a google search of the
>'minoan warm period.'
>
>Only that as one might expect, Mr. Stevens own evidence contradicts
>Mr. Stevens' suggestion that warriors went naked because of the Minoan Warm Period.
>
>A clear chart makes it crystal.
>
>https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/06/22/climate-and-human-civilization-for-the-past-4000-years/
I'm familiar with that article. Did you read the comments? Did you
>A clear chart makes it crystal.
>
>https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/06/22/climate-and-human-civilization-for-the-past-4000-years/
understand them?
>
>Again, since change was slow in ancient times, the best chances to surmise what
>the tribes involved in that battle were like, is to examine the ancient
>descriptions of Germanic peoples.
>
>Tacitus' Germania provides one such, here:
>
>http://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/halsall/source/tacitus1.html
>
>It includes sections on climate and dress.
Tacitus was more than a thousand years after the time of the battle.
>Again, since change was slow in ancient times, the best chances to surmise what
>the tribes involved in that battle were like, is to examine the ancient
>descriptions of Germanic peoples.
>
>Tacitus' Germania provides one such, here:
>
>http://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/halsall/source/tacitus1.html
>
>It includes sections on climate and dress.
He can hardly be an expert on the battle clothing of the earlier time.
>
>Roman extensive knowledge of Germans began in the 3rd century BC, almost
>a thousand years after the battle, that is a problem, though as I said
>change was rather slow in barbarian societies. The biggest change since the
>battle would have been the advent of iron weapons, not climate.
>
Change may have been slow but not that slow. Further, societies were
>Roman extensive knowledge of Germans began in the 3rd century BC, almost
>a thousand years after the battle, that is a problem, though as I said
>change was rather slow in barbarian societies. The biggest change since the
>battle would have been the advent of iron weapons, not climate.
>
not uniform in their behaviour.
You should go back to my earlier article which started all this when I
asked Robert Mulai "Didn't many of them traditionally fight naked?"
You are now trying to turn my question into a claim.
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
Tiglath
Aug 13, 2016, 1:45:19 AM8/13/16
to
On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 12:56:07 AM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
> >> Have you never heard of the Minoan Warm Period?
> >> See http://tinyurl.com/zu6p7ps Even at the tail, it was till warmer
> >> than now.
> >
> >There he goes again...
> >
> >The Battle is dated c. 1200.
> >
> >Which came AFTER the Minoan Warm Period, 1450-1300 BC.
>
> You had to fudge the dates, didn't you?
You need more Google, don't be lazy.
> >> Have you never heard of the Minoan Warm Period?
> >> See http://tinyurl.com/zu6p7ps Even at the tail, it was till warmer
> >> than now.
> >
> >There he goes again...
> >
> >The Battle is dated c. 1200.
> >
> >Which came AFTER the Minoan Warm Period, 1450-1300 BC.
>
> You had to fudge the dates, didn't you?
> >
> >What we know is that the documented naked warriors were Gauls not Germans.
>
> The word 'Gaul' is not mentioned in the article.
> >
That's because naked Gauls are profusely documented in Roman sources. Read
some history before you post in history groups, Australasian rube.
> >
> >Do you see any naked warriors?
>
> Do you see *any* remnants of clothing?
You suffer from blinding stupidity.
Mr. Stevens you are heading for another bad bout of ridicule, watch your step.
Your are too infirm to tangle with minute detail and get into the weeds
of issues, things don't click in your mind and they do normally in other
people. Go have some chamomile tea and play with the sheep.
Eric Stevens
Aug 13, 2016, 4:15:22 AM8/13/16
to
On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 22:45:18 -0700 (PDT), Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net>
wrote:
>On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 12:56:07 AM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
>
>> >> Have you never heard of the Minoan Warm Period?
>> >> See http://tinyurl.com/zu6p7ps Even at the tail, it was till warmer
>> >> than now.
>> >
>> >There he goes again...
>> >
>> >The Battle is dated c. 1200.
>> >
>> >Which came AFTER the Minoan Warm Period, 1450-1300 BC.
>>
>> You had to fudge the dates, didn't you?
>
>You need more Google, don't be lazy.
Give a source.
mentioned it. Haw!
Regards,
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 12:56:07 AM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
>
>> >> Have you never heard of the Minoan Warm Period?
>> >> See http://tinyurl.com/zu6p7ps Even at the tail, it was till warmer
>> >> than now.
>> >
>> >There he goes again...
>> >
>> >The Battle is dated c. 1200.
>> >
>> >Which came AFTER the Minoan Warm Period, 1450-1300 BC.
>>
>> You had to fudge the dates, didn't you?
>
>You need more Google, don't be lazy.
>
>
>
>
>> >
>> >What we know is that the documented naked warriors were Gauls not Germans.
>>
>> The word 'Gaul' is not mentioned in the article.
>> >
>
>You are so fucking ignorant, janitor.
>
>That's because naked Gauls are profusely documented in Roman sources. Read
>some history before you post in history groups, Australasian rube.
So your definition of history is that the Romans have to have
>
>
>
>> >
>> >What we know is that the documented naked warriors were Gauls not Germans.
>>
>> The word 'Gaul' is not mentioned in the article.
>> >
>
>You are so fucking ignorant, janitor.
>
>That's because naked Gauls are profusely documented in Roman sources. Read
>some history before you post in history groups, Australasian rube.
mentioned it. Haw!
>
>
>
>> >
>> >Do you see any naked warriors?
>>
>> Do you see *any* remnants of clothing?
>
>Yes! tassles and garment ornaments. You have not even read the article!
>
>You suffer from blinding stupidity.
>
>Mr. Stevens you are heading for another bad bout of ridicule, watch your step.
>Your are too infirm to tangle with minute detail and get into the weeds
>of issues, things don't click in your mind and they do normally in other
>people. Go have some chamomile tea and play with the sheep.
--
>
>
>> >
>> >Do you see any naked warriors?
>>
>> Do you see *any* remnants of clothing?
>
>Yes! tassles and garment ornaments. You have not even read the article!
>
>You suffer from blinding stupidity.
>
>Mr. Stevens you are heading for another bad bout of ridicule, watch your step.
>Your are too infirm to tangle with minute detail and get into the weeds
>of issues, things don't click in your mind and they do normally in other
>people. Go have some chamomile tea and play with the sheep.
Regards,
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
Aug 13, 2016, 4:23:25 AM8/13/16
to
On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 21:29:46 -0700 (PDT), Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net>
wrote:
>On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 8:53:26 PM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
>
>> >>
>> >> See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudity_in_combat
>> >
>> >Totally irrelevant.
>> >
>> >Naked Gauls have nothing to do with what people 900 year prior did in the
>> >Baltic region. Have you ever been north of Berlin? It's not known for
>> >its hot temperatures.
>>
>> Have you never heard of the Minoan Warm Period?
>> See http://tinyurl.com/zu6p7ps Even at the tail, it was till warmer
>> than now.
>
>There he goes again...
>
>The Battle is dated c. 1200.
>
>Which came AFTER the Minoan Warm Period, 1450-1300 BC.
>
>It's idle speculation to divine what people wore on the unknown date of a
>battle in the Baltic region. Winters are long and cold and summers are short,
>but I am quite sure that prancing in the nude North of Berlin in August
>won't kill you, though I haven't tried it.
>
>What we know is that the documented naked warriors were Gauls not Germans.
>
>And before you keep shooting from the hip I recommend you take a quick look
>and the link the OP provided.
>
>http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/slaughter-bridge-uncovering-colossal-bronze-age-battle
>
>Do you see any naked warriors?
>
>Those are the depictions from those who investigate, that is, not janitors,
>but scholars, and are the best available approximation to the truth.
Yep. Do you see any evidence of clothed warriors?
from. I really meant to point you to the centre of that jumble. What
I intended was
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c013482e6a19e970c-pi
July in China, Shang dynasty collapses' at temperatures we have
experienced in the last century or so without these trauma.
Regards,
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 8:53:26 PM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
>
>> >>
>> >> See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudity_in_combat
>> >
>> >Totally irrelevant.
>> >
>> >Naked Gauls have nothing to do with what people 900 year prior did in the
>> >Baltic region. Have you ever been north of Berlin? It's not known for
>> >its hot temperatures.
>>
>> Have you never heard of the Minoan Warm Period?
>> See http://tinyurl.com/zu6p7ps Even at the tail, it was till warmer
>> than now.
>
>There he goes again...
>
>The Battle is dated c. 1200.
>
>Which came AFTER the Minoan Warm Period, 1450-1300 BC.
>
>It's idle speculation to divine what people wore on the unknown date of a
>battle in the Baltic region. Winters are long and cold and summers are short,
>but I am quite sure that prancing in the nude North of Berlin in August
>won't kill you, though I haven't tried it.
>
>What we know is that the documented naked warriors were Gauls not Germans.
>
>And before you keep shooting from the hip I recommend you take a quick look
>and the link the OP provided.
>
>http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/slaughter-bridge-uncovering-colossal-bronze-age-battle
>
>Do you see any naked warriors?
>
>Those are the depictions from those who investigate, that is, not janitors,
>but scholars, and are the best available approximation to the truth.
>
>Not to mention that some of the objects recovered are thought to be garment
>tassels and decorations.
>
>Then Mr. Stevens posts a link to a jumble of images for a google search of the
>'minoan warm period.'
Yep. That was a mistake, but it should have given you plenty to choose
>Not to mention that some of the objects recovered are thought to be garment
>tassels and decorations.
>
>Then Mr. Stevens posts a link to a jumble of images for a google search of the
>'minoan warm period.'
from. I really meant to point you to the centre of that jumble. What
I intended was
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c013482e6a19e970c-pi
>
>Only that as one might expect, Mr. Stevens own evidence contradicts
>Mr. Stevens' suggestion that warriors went naked because of the Minoan Warm Period.
>
>A clear chart makes it crystal.
>
>https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/06/22/climate-and-human-civilization-for-the-past-4000-years/
That one is open to debate. It shows 'Yellow River Freezes, froost in
>Only that as one might expect, Mr. Stevens own evidence contradicts
>Mr. Stevens' suggestion that warriors went naked because of the Minoan Warm Period.
>
>A clear chart makes it crystal.
>
>https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/06/22/climate-and-human-civilization-for-the-past-4000-years/
July in China, Shang dynasty collapses' at temperatures we have
experienced in the last century or so without these trauma.
>
>Again, since change was slow in ancient times, the best chances to surmise what
>the tribes involved in that battle were like, is to examine the ancient
>descriptions of Germanic peoples.
>
>Tacitus' Germania provides one such, here:
>
>http://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/halsall/source/tacitus1.html
>
>It includes sections on climate and dress.
It's a thousand years too late.
>Again, since change was slow in ancient times, the best chances to surmise what
>the tribes involved in that battle were like, is to examine the ancient
>descriptions of Germanic peoples.
>
>Tacitus' Germania provides one such, here:
>
>http://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/halsall/source/tacitus1.html
>
>It includes sections on climate and dress.
>
>Roman extensive knowledge of Germans began in the 3rd century BC, almost
>a thousand years after the battle, that is a problem, though as I said
>change was rather slow in barbarian societies. The biggest change since the
>battle would have been the advent of iron weapons, not climate.
>
--
>Roman extensive knowledge of Germans began in the 3rd century BC, almost
>a thousand years after the battle, that is a problem, though as I said
>change was rather slow in barbarian societies. The biggest change since the
>battle would have been the advent of iron weapons, not climate.
>
Regards,
Eric Stevens
Tiglath
Aug 13, 2016, 12:33:58 PM8/13/16
to
On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 4:15:22 AM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
> >
> >> >> Have you never heard of the Minoan Warm Period?
> >> >> See http://tinyurl.com/zu6p7ps Even at the tail, it was till warmer
> >> >> than now.
> >> >
> >> >There he goes again...
> >> >
> >> >The Battle is dated c. 1200.
> >> >
> >> >Which came AFTER the Minoan Warm Period, 1450-1300 BC.
> >>
> >> You had to fudge the dates, didn't you?
> >
> >You need more Google, don't be lazy.
>
> Give a source.
I repeat: more google and less doodle, janitor.
> >
> >> >> Have you never heard of the Minoan Warm Period?
> >> >> See http://tinyurl.com/zu6p7ps Even at the tail, it was till warmer
> >> >> than now.
> >> >
> >> >There he goes again...
> >> >
> >> >The Battle is dated c. 1200.
> >> >
> >> >Which came AFTER the Minoan Warm Period, 1450-1300 BC.
> >>
> >> You had to fudge the dates, didn't you?
> >
> >You need more Google, don't be lazy.
>
> Give a source.
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/longversionfinal.pdf
First paragraph.
> >> >
> >> >What we know is that the documented naked warriors were Gauls not Germans.
> >>
> >> The word 'Gaul' is not mentioned in the article.
> >> >
> >
> >You are so fucking ignorant, janitor.
> >
> >That's because naked Gauls are profusely documented in Roman sources. Read
> >some history before you post in history groups, Australasian rube.
>
> So your definition of history is that the Romans have to have
> mentioned it. Haw!
It was you who mentioned the Romans first in this thread, idiot.
You posted:
"Polybius' Histories describe how the Gaesatae, hired by other Celtic peoples,
the Boii and Insubres as mercenaries to fight the Romans, stood naked at the
head of their army at the Battle of Telamon in 225BC"
You got the WRONG ethnic group.
Fighting naked was never a German tradition.
> >> >Do you see any naked warriors?
> >>
> >> Do you see *any* remnants of clothing?
> >
> >Yes! tassles and garment ornaments. You have not even read the article!
This is a serious question. Do you ever get or do anything right, Mr. Stevens?
Sigurdr Volsung
Aug 13, 2016, 12:50:18 PM8/13/16
to
Gauls are Celts? Not sure about this so-called fact.
Caesar said Gaul was divided into three parts.
I think he was dividing that territory , later province into three ethnic regions.
The Belgae were definitely Celts.
But the Aquitani, these were a Basque people.
And the Catalans from whence did they originate?
Caesar said Gaul was divided into three parts.
I think he was dividing that territory , later province into three ethnic regions.
The Belgae were definitely Celts.
But the Aquitani, these were a Basque people.
And the Catalans from whence did they originate?
Tiglath
Aug 13, 2016, 1:39:32 PM8/13/16
to
On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 4:23:25 AM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
> >A clear chart makes it crystal.
> >
> >https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/06/22/climate-and-human-civilization-for-the-past-4000-years/
>
> That one is open to debate. It shows 'Yellow River Freezes, froost in
> July in China, Shang dynasty collapses' at temperatures we have
> experienced in the last century or so without these trauma.
> >
<Drum roll>
> >A clear chart makes it crystal.
> >
> >https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/06/22/climate-and-human-civilization-for-the-past-4000-years/
>
> That one is open to debate. It shows 'Yellow River Freezes, froost in
> July in China, Shang dynasty collapses' at temperatures we have
> experienced in the last century or so without these trauma.
> >
And yet... There he goes again...
Mr. Stevens is astonished that in the last century Greenland temperatures
comparable to those in 1046 BC did not cause another collapse of the
Shang dynasty.
And to think that you believe yourself qualified to pontificate on climate
change. It's a wonder.
Mr. Stevens questions a chart of ice core temperatures in GREENLAND's ice, because they don't correspond to local weather phenomena in China, uniformly.
It's unbelievable.
The chart's annotations are clearly a map to the reader through the changes
recorded as they might correspond to historical events.
Temperature fluctuations did not cause the fall of Mycenae. And there are
a million possible causes whey there could be frost in July in China in
the twelfth century BC while in Greenland the temperature was similar to today's.
Mr. Stevens can't see that.
He can't see either that temperatures are not the point in themselves, the
POINT is TEMPERATURE VARIATION.
Because we know that temperatures did not vary much at all near the equator
for millions of years, yet variation increases as you measure it closer to the
poles. Actual temperatures and variations are not the same in Greenland and Antarctica either, but temperature change can be directly connected to changes in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and that is where the value
resides.
Mr. Stevens thinks that Greenland ice-cores temperatures should parallel
annual weather in China, which is absolutely bonkers for any one who has
read on this minimally.
Mr. Stevens you are a riot inside a tornado in the middle of a hurricane.
Scramble eggs, man, not your brain.
Tiglath
Aug 13, 2016, 1:42:58 PM8/13/16
to
On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 12:50:18 PM UTC-4, Sigurdr Volsung wrote:
> Gauls are Celts? Not sure about this so-called fact.
Another attempt to insert himself into a serious threat.
> Gauls are Celts? Not sure about this so-called fact.
A failed attempt, again.
No slimy slugs allowed, sorry.
Go crawl into some crack and lick some anus.
Tiglath
Aug 13, 2016, 1:48:53 PM8/13/16
to
On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 4:23:25 AM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
> >
> >Then Mr. Stevens posts a link to a jumble of images for a google search of the
> >'minoan warm period.'
>
> Yep. That was a mistake,
Stop the presses!
> >
> >Then Mr. Stevens posts a link to a jumble of images for a google search of the
> >'minoan warm period.'
>
> Yep. That was a mistake,
All hands meeting!
Mr. Stevens made a mistake, and HE ADMITS IT.
Quick dial 111.
You must be running a fever.
I hope it is not the Zika virus, you really, really couldn't spare
any cranial capacity reduction.
Tiglath
Aug 13, 2016, 2:19:36 PM8/13/16
to
On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 4:23:25 AM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
> >
> >Again, since change was slow in ancient times, the best chances to surmise what
> >the tribes involved in that battle were like, is to examine the ancient
> >descriptions of Germanic peoples.
> >
> >Tacitus' Germania provides one such, here:
> >
> >http://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/halsall/source/tacitus1.html
> >
> >It includes sections on climate and dress.
>
> It's a thousand years too late.
Is there an echo here? Did I not say that?
> >
> >Again, since change was slow in ancient times, the best chances to surmise what
> >the tribes involved in that battle were like, is to examine the ancient
> >descriptions of Germanic peoples.
> >
> >Tacitus' Germania provides one such, here:
> >
> >http://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/halsall/source/tacitus1.html
> >
> >It includes sections on climate and dress.
>
> It's a thousand years too late.
In history you can't work with what you haven't got.
A thousand years is a long time but I repeat, change was slow.
You see chariots in Troy and you see chariots against Alexander some
850 years later.
Innovations did not propagate widely or quickly. Siegecraft is a major
example.
Assyrians had splendid siege towers, and battering rams and scaling
ladders were known way before. The Hittites uses large ramps to roll up
covered battering rams. Yet the armies of classical Greece made negligible use of siegecraft; until Alexander we don't see efficient siegecraft. And the Celtic and German tribal armies made little or no use of it a thousand years after 1200 BC. Even Hannibal (216 BC) could not take Rome after Cannae because of lack of siege engines.
We are conditioned by modern progress and we expect things to be different and
better from year to year, but that notion did not exist in antiquity, and change
was really slow and highly localized.
It's thus imprudent to dismiss Roman knowledge of Germania as irrelevant to
the issue at hand.
But what would you know if prudence?
Sigurdr Volsung
Aug 13, 2016, 5:09:24 PM8/13/16
to
Boudicca's Balls to your theory!
Tiglath
Aug 13, 2016, 6:08:27 PM8/13/16
to
On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 5:09:24 PM UTC-4, Sigurdr Volsung wrote:
>
> Oh my gosh your ignorance of technical history simply astounds us all.
Us all? Is that the royal "us"?
>
> Oh my gosh your ignorance of technical history simply astounds us all.
The slug is so tired of shooting at me without result that has to invent
a group, "us," which shares his aims and hopes.
It's the figment of the inferior, the powerless and the pathetic.
A psychological crutch of dickless, ball-less effeminate cunts, like you.
Tell me how the Scots oppressed the English with their chariots, please
I am all ears.
Don't forget to recount every detail of the incredible evolution chariots
underwent when the Scots added an extra spoke to the wheels.
And the hopping chariot, which could leap over Adrian's Wall and struck
terror into the English mind that lasted centuries.
And how Darius III beat Alexander with chariots equipped with GPS.
I just love slug-gish history.
Tell me, and tell "us" above all, the group of people you delight here
daily constantly growing in numbers.
Tiglath
Aug 13, 2016, 6:35:14 PM8/13/16
to
On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 8:53:26 PM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
>
>
> Have you never heard of the Minoan Warm Period?
>
The reason Mr. Stevens mentions this, folks, is because it's a
>
favorite go-to argument of climate change deniers, which he is.
Another one is the Roman Warm Period.
It's unclear why Mr. Stevens mentioned the Minoan Warm Period in reference to
the Tollense Valley Battle of 1200 BC, and warriors possibly fighting in the
nude.
Perhaps he will tell us, perhaps not since he must have realized by now
that the Minoan Warm Period ended 100 years before the battle.
A fact he accused me of "fudging," an unfair accusation he will surely
won't apologize for.
These warm periods are the foundation of climate denies.
Their simplistic argument goes like this: It was warmer than today during the
Minoan/Roman Warm Period and civilization did not die, and there were no mass
extinctions. Therefore, global warming is a natural thing and not caused by man.
Of course, the scientific consensus is that we know quite well why those
warm periods took place, and involved various factors like solar activity,
the earth's orbit and others.
So heating factors led to warmer periods in the past.
The problem is that those heating factors are not present today.
If oscillations in solar radiation are a major factor in global warming,
a distinct possibility, the sun's activity is presently moving in the wrong
direction to cause any warming.
Therefore, absent the factors seemingly responsible for past warm periods,
that leaves US as the main cause of the current warming, sea-rising trend.
Got a better explanation? Tell NASA and if it pans out you'll have my
admiration and that of far more important people in this field.
Robert Mulain
Aug 13, 2016, 6:40:51 PM8/13/16
to
Not as classy as the Astrolger/Fool in the Chronicle of Essaychem of course, they were a class act. I wonder where ole' Spency is? I fear the Trauma of Trump and collapse of his precious Republican Party has affected his health adversely? Get well soon David, we miss you!
Tiglath
Aug 13, 2016, 7:07:46 PM8/13/16
to
On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 6:40:51 PM UTC-4, Robert Mulain wrote:
I wonder where ole' Spency is? I fear the Trauma of Trump and collapse of his precious Republican Party has affected his health adversely? Get well soon David, we miss you!
Too right. He could be socking it to Stevens and Slug and sharing in the fun.
I wonder where ole' Spency is? I fear the Trauma of Trump and collapse of his precious Republican Party has affected his health adversely? Get well soon David, we miss you!
He is missing laughter, healthy precious laughter.
I am rather concerned for his well-being too. His stern nature doesn't help
situations like the current Republican crisis. A Hillary presidency may well
do him in. First a black and now a woman. Little Marco, his boy, lost too and
became a Vichy Republican. There are limits.
And I hear that the Republicans may lose the Senate. There are ten seats
up for grabs and Dems only need four to get the Senate.
Plus teaching the Trump dog new tricks doesn't seem doable. Even if they guy
crammed in like a slug in a piss pot, which would be against his nature,
there is not enough time to get a firm grounding in geopolitics and
governance that would amount to being well prepared for the debates, where
Hillary surely will fling him a few curved balls.
I was in Europe recently, and everywhere you go you have to engage in
"Trumpxplaining." It's like being on an apology tour. People are worried
because of his disregard for NATO and his palling around with Putin.
I resorted to pretend I was Spanish to get out of it.
Eric Stevens
Aug 13, 2016, 7:47:11 PM8/13/16
to
On Sat, 13 Aug 2016 09:33:57 -0700 (PDT), Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net>
wrote:
>On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 4:15:22 AM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
>
>> >
>> >> >> Have you never heard of the Minoan Warm Period?
>> >> >> See http://tinyurl.com/zu6p7ps Even at the tail, it was till warmer
>> >> >> than now.
>> >> >
>> >> >There he goes again...
>> >> >
>> >> >The Battle is dated c. 1200.
>> >> >
>> >> >Which came AFTER the Minoan Warm Period, 1450-1300 BC.
>> >>
>> >> You had to fudge the dates, didn't you?
>> >
>> >You need more Google, don't be lazy.
>>
>> Give a source.
>
>I repeat: more google and less doodle, janitor.
>
>http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/longversionfinal.pdf
>
>First paragraph.
That's taken from the Vostok ice core. Greenland tells a different
story. See also
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/the-big-picture-65-million-years-of-temperature-swings/
Click on the graph to enlarge it.
>
>> >> >
>> >> >What we know is that the documented naked warriors were Gauls not Germans.
>> >>
>> >> The word 'Gaul' is not mentioned in the article.
>> >> >
>> >
>> >You are so fucking ignorant, janitor.
>> >
>> >That's because naked Gauls are profusely documented in Roman sources. Read
>> >some history before you post in history groups, Australasian rube.
>>
>> So your definition of history is that the Romans have to have
>> mentioned it. Haw!
>
>You ARE a rube.
And you are a person who gets kicks out of being nasty to others.
know who were the various parties to the fight. You don't know that
fighting naked was widespread throughout Europe. See
http://tinyurl.com/z2mu2yw
the direct site.
Regards,
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 4:15:22 AM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
>
>> >
>> >> >> Have you never heard of the Minoan Warm Period?
>> >> >> See http://tinyurl.com/zu6p7ps Even at the tail, it was till warmer
>> >> >> than now.
>> >> >
>> >> >There he goes again...
>> >> >
>> >> >The Battle is dated c. 1200.
>> >> >
>> >> >Which came AFTER the Minoan Warm Period, 1450-1300 BC.
>> >>
>> >> You had to fudge the dates, didn't you?
>> >
>> >You need more Google, don't be lazy.
>>
>> Give a source.
>
>I repeat: more google and less doodle, janitor.
>
>http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/longversionfinal.pdf
>
>First paragraph.
story. See also
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/the-big-picture-65-million-years-of-temperature-swings/
Click on the graph to enlarge it.
>
>> >> >
>> >> >What we know is that the documented naked warriors were Gauls not Germans.
>> >>
>> >> The word 'Gaul' is not mentioned in the article.
>> >> >
>> >
>> >You are so fucking ignorant, janitor.
>> >
>> >That's because naked Gauls are profusely documented in Roman sources. Read
>> >some history before you post in history groups, Australasian rube.
>>
>> So your definition of history is that the Romans have to have
>> mentioned it. Haw!
>
>You ARE a rube.
>
>It was you who mentioned the Romans first in this thread, idiot.
>
>You posted:
>
>"Polybius' Histories describe how the Gaesatae, hired by other Celtic peoples,
>the Boii and Insubres as mercenaries to fight the Romans, stood naked at the
>head of their army at the Battle of Telamon in 225BC"
>
>You don't even know the Gauls were Celts, either, right rube?
>
>You got the WRONG ethnic group.
>
>Fighting naked was never a German tradition.
You don't know that. You don't know they were all Germans. You don't
>It was you who mentioned the Romans first in this thread, idiot.
>
>You posted:
>
>"Polybius' Histories describe how the Gaesatae, hired by other Celtic peoples,
>the Boii and Insubres as mercenaries to fight the Romans, stood naked at the
>head of their army at the Battle of Telamon in 225BC"
>
>You don't even know the Gauls were Celts, either, right rube?
>
>You got the WRONG ethnic group.
>
>Fighting naked was never a German tradition.
know who were the various parties to the fight. You don't know that
fighting naked was widespread throughout Europe. See
http://tinyurl.com/z2mu2yw
>
>> >> >Do you see any naked warriors?
>> >>
>> >> Do you see *any* remnants of clothing?
>> >
>> >Yes! tassles and garment ornaments. You have not even read the article!
>
>Did you see the PICTURES of "remnants of clothing" yet, stupido?
I can't find any relevant photographs other than the ones included in
>> >> >Do you see any naked warriors?
>> >>
>> >> Do you see *any* remnants of clothing?
>> >
>> >Yes! tassles and garment ornaments. You have not even read the article!
>
>Did you see the PICTURES of "remnants of clothing" yet, stupido?
the direct site.
>
>This is a serious question. Do you ever get or do anything right, Mr. Stevens?
--
>This is a serious question. Do you ever get or do anything right, Mr. Stevens?
Regards,
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
Aug 13, 2016, 7:48:14 PM8/13/16
to
On Sat, 13 Aug 2016 10:42:57 -0700 (PDT), Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net>
wrote:
Evading a tricky question? That's your style.
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
wrote:
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
Aug 13, 2016, 7:54:09 PM8/13/16
to
On Sat, 13 Aug 2016 10:39:30 -0700 (PDT), Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net>
wrote:
>On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 4:23:25 AM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
>
>> >A clear chart makes it crystal.
>> >
>> >https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/06/22/climate-and-human-civilization-for-the-past-4000-years/
>>
>> That one is open to debate. It shows 'Yellow River Freezes, froost in
>> July in China, Shang dynasty collapses' at temperatures we have
>> experienced in the last century or so without these trauma.
>> >
>
><Drum roll>
>
>And yet... There he goes again...
>
>Mr. Stevens is astonished that in the last century Greenland temperatures
>comparable to those in 1046 BC did not cause another collapse of the
>Shang dynasty.
>
>And to think that you believe yourself qualified to pontificate on climate
>change. It's a wonder.
>
>Mr. Stevens questions a chart of ice core temperatures in GREENLAND's ice, because they don't correspond to local weather phenomena in China, uniformly.
>
>It's unbelievable.
It certainly is. Why then are you straining to believe it?
> Actual temperatures and variations are not the same in Greenland and Antarctica either, but temperature change can be directly connected to changes in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and that is where the value
>resides.
>
>Mr. Stevens thinks that Greenland ice-cores temperatures should parallel
>annual weather in China, which is absolutely bonkers for any one who has
>read on this minimally.
But have you even read as much as that?
Regards,
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 4:23:25 AM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
>
>> >A clear chart makes it crystal.
>> >
>> >https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/06/22/climate-and-human-civilization-for-the-past-4000-years/
>>
>> That one is open to debate. It shows 'Yellow River Freezes, froost in
>> July in China, Shang dynasty collapses' at temperatures we have
>> experienced in the last century or so without these trauma.
>> >
>
><Drum roll>
>
>And yet... There he goes again...
>
>Mr. Stevens is astonished that in the last century Greenland temperatures
>comparable to those in 1046 BC did not cause another collapse of the
>Shang dynasty.
>
>And to think that you believe yourself qualified to pontificate on climate
>change. It's a wonder.
>
>Mr. Stevens questions a chart of ice core temperatures in GREENLAND's ice, because they don't correspond to local weather phenomena in China, uniformly.
>
>It's unbelievable.
>
>The chart's annotations are clearly a map to the reader through the changes
>recorded as they might correspond to historical events.
>
>Temperature fluctuations did not cause the fall of Mycenae. And there are
>a million possible causes whey there could be frost in July in China in
>the twelfth century BC while in Greenland the temperature was similar to today's.
>
>Mr. Stevens can't see that.
>
>He can't see either that temperatures are not the point in themselves, the
>POINT is TEMPERATURE VARIATION.
Back to your favourite stumbling block: coordinate systems.
>The chart's annotations are clearly a map to the reader through the changes
>recorded as they might correspond to historical events.
>
>Temperature fluctuations did not cause the fall of Mycenae. And there are
>a million possible causes whey there could be frost in July in China in
>the twelfth century BC while in Greenland the temperature was similar to today's.
>
>Mr. Stevens can't see that.
>
>He can't see either that temperatures are not the point in themselves, the
>POINT is TEMPERATURE VARIATION.
>
>Because we know that temperatures did not vary much at all near the equator
>for millions of years, yet variation increases as you measure it closer to the
>poles.
Do you know why?
>Because we know that temperatures did not vary much at all near the equator
>for millions of years, yet variation increases as you measure it closer to the
>poles.
> Actual temperatures and variations are not the same in Greenland and Antarctica either, but temperature change can be directly connected to changes in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and that is where the value
>resides.
>
>Mr. Stevens thinks that Greenland ice-cores temperatures should parallel
>annual weather in China, which is absolutely bonkers for any one who has
>read on this minimally.
>
>Mr. Stevens you are a riot inside a tornado in the middle of a hurricane.
>
>Scramble eggs, man, not your brain.
>
>
>
--
>Mr. Stevens you are a riot inside a tornado in the middle of a hurricane.
>
>Scramble eggs, man, not your brain.
>
>
>
Regards,
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
Aug 13, 2016, 7:57:24 PM8/13/16
to
On Sat, 13 Aug 2016 11:19:34 -0700 (PDT), Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net>
wrote:
>On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 4:23:25 AM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
>
>> >
>> >Again, since change was slow in ancient times, the best chances to surmise what
>> >the tribes involved in that battle were like, is to examine the ancient
>> >descriptions of Germanic peoples.
>> >
>> >Tacitus' Germania provides one such, here:
>> >
>> >http://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/halsall/source/tacitus1.html
>> >
>> >It includes sections on climate and dress.
>>
>> It's a thousand years too late.
>
>Is there an echo here? Did I not say that?
Yes you did, but that didn't stop you from trying to use it.
populations of Europe changed enormously over a thousand years.
Regards,
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 4:23:25 AM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
>
>> >
>> >Again, since change was slow in ancient times, the best chances to surmise what
>> >the tribes involved in that battle were like, is to examine the ancient
>> >descriptions of Germanic peoples.
>> >
>> >Tacitus' Germania provides one such, here:
>> >
>> >http://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/halsall/source/tacitus1.html
>> >
>> >It includes sections on climate and dress.
>>
>> It's a thousand years too late.
>
>Is there an echo here? Did I not say that?
>
>In history you can't work with what you haven't got.
>
>A thousand years is a long time but I repeat, change was slow.
>
>You see chariots in Troy and you see chariots against Alexander some
>850 years later.
>
>Innovations did not propagate widely or quickly. Siegecraft is a major
>example.
>
>Assyrians had splendid siege towers, and battering rams and scaling
>ladders were known way before. The Hittites uses large ramps to roll up
>covered battering rams. Yet the armies of classical Greece made negligible use of siegecraft; until Alexander we don't see efficient siegecraft. And the Celtic and German tribal armies made little or no use of it a thousand years after 1200 BC. Even Hannibal (216 BC) could not take Rome after Cannae because of lack of siege engines.
>
>We are conditioned by modern progress and we expect things to be different and
>better from year to year, but that notion did not exist in antiquity, and change
>was really slow and highly localized.
>
>It's thus imprudent to dismiss Roman knowledge of Germania as irrelevant to
>the issue at hand.
Is that what you have been trying to lead up to? But then the
>In history you can't work with what you haven't got.
>
>A thousand years is a long time but I repeat, change was slow.
>
>You see chariots in Troy and you see chariots against Alexander some
>850 years later.
>
>Innovations did not propagate widely or quickly. Siegecraft is a major
>example.
>
>Assyrians had splendid siege towers, and battering rams and scaling
>ladders were known way before. The Hittites uses large ramps to roll up
>covered battering rams. Yet the armies of classical Greece made negligible use of siegecraft; until Alexander we don't see efficient siegecraft. And the Celtic and German tribal armies made little or no use of it a thousand years after 1200 BC. Even Hannibal (216 BC) could not take Rome after Cannae because of lack of siege engines.
>
>We are conditioned by modern progress and we expect things to be different and
>better from year to year, but that notion did not exist in antiquity, and change
>was really slow and highly localized.
>
>It's thus imprudent to dismiss Roman knowledge of Germania as irrelevant to
>the issue at hand.
populations of Europe changed enormously over a thousand years.
>
>But what would you know if prudence?
>
>
--
>But what would you know if prudence?
>
>
Regards,
Eric Stevens
Tiglath
Aug 13, 2016, 9:03:17 PM8/13/16
to
On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 7:47:11 PM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
> >> >> You had to fudge the dates, didn't you?
> >> >
> >> >> You had to fudge the dates, didn't you?
> >> >
> >http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/longversionfinal.pdf
> >
> >First paragraph.
>
> That's taken from the Vostok ice core. Greenland tells a different
> story.
So what about my "fudging" the dates?
> >
> >First paragraph.
>
> That's taken from the Vostok ice core. Greenland tells a different
> story.
> See also
> http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/the-big-picture-65-million-years-of-temperature-swings/
> Click on the graph to enlarge it.
>
an eternity. You present 2010 data to dispute 2016 data. It can't be done.
The graph I showed you is GREENLAND data. Here it is again.
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/climate-civilization-gisp-chart.png
Updated in 2016.
It clearly shows that the Minoan Warm Period preceded the Tollense Valley Battle
And, a mention from 2010 that the period happened "about 3200 years ago" does not change anything.
Why do you mention that period anyway? What is it the relevance to the
Tollense Valley Battle?
> >Fighting naked was never a German tradition.
>
> You don't know that.
"German" and "Germania," are terms from classical times. They refer to
tribes of central and north Europe known to the Romans, beyond their
immediate neighbors. They are profusely documented, including their
customs and traditions.
>
> You don't know that
> fighting naked was widespread throughout Europe.
That's why I never said anything about the subject UNTIL you did.
My point was that if they fought naked, which we don't know, the practice
must have been discontinued because it's not documented by history.
Since you started this, why don't you tell the readers, what is your basis
to think that warriors of the Tollense Valley Battle fought naked?
Do you see any naked warrior in the article's pictures?
Support your claim/suggestion/idea, if you can.
> >> >> Do you see *any* remnants of clothing?
> >> >
> >> >Yes! tassles and garment ornaments. You have not even read the article!
> >
> >Did you see the PICTURES of "remnants of clothing" yet, stupido?
>
> I can't find any relevant photographs other than the ones included in
> the direct site.
Some of the object pictured are described as probably tassels and clothing ornaments, which suggest CLOTHING.
Cataracts are a terrible thing.
Tiglath
Aug 13, 2016, 9:10:08 PM8/13/16
to
On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 7:48:14 PM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
> >> Gauls are Celts? Not sure about this so-called fact.
> >
> >
> >> Gauls are Celts? Not sure about this so-called fact.
> >
> >
> Evading a tricky question? That's your style.
I don't discuss history with slugs.
As for you... Do you want to get into this?
Choosing battles poorly, again? That's your style.
Go google Gaul and ogle odds.
Tiglath
Aug 13, 2016, 11:24:50 PM8/13/16
to
On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 7:54:09 PM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
> >
> >Mr. Stevens questions a chart of ice core temperatures in GREENLAND's ice, because they don't correspond to local weather phenomena in China, uniformly.
> >
> >It's unbelievable.
>
> It certainly is. Why then are you straining to believe it?
> >
It's you not me who wrote this gem:
> >
> >Mr. Stevens questions a chart of ice core temperatures in GREENLAND's ice, because they don't correspond to local weather phenomena in China, uniformly.
> >
> >It's unbelievable.
>
> It certainly is. Why then are you straining to believe it?
> >
"That one is open to debate. It shows 'Yellow River Freezes, froost in
July in China, Shang dynasty collapses' at temperatures we have
experienced in the last century or so without these trauma."
Explain that.
Tiglath
Aug 13, 2016, 11:28:03 PM8/13/16
to
On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 7:57:24 PM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
> >>
> >> It's a thousand years too late.
> >
> >Is there an echo here? Did I not say that?
>
> Yes you did, but that didn't stop you from trying to use it.
> >
> >In history you can't work with what you haven't got.
> >
> >A thousand years is a long time but I repeat, change was slow.
> >
> >You see chariots in Troy and you see chariots against Alexander some
> >850 years later.
> >
> >Innovations did not propagate widely or quickly. Siegecraft is a major
> >example.
> >
> >Assyrians had splendid siege towers, and battering rams and scaling
> >ladders were known way before. The Hittites uses large ramps to roll up
> >covered battering rams. Yet the armies of classical Greece made negligible use of siegecraft; until Alexander we don't see efficient siegecraft. And the Celtic and German tribal armies made little or no use of it a thousand years after 1200 BC. Even Hannibal (216 BC) could not take Rome after Cannae because of lack of siege engines.
> >
> >We are conditioned by modern progress and we expect things to be different and
> >better from year to year, but that notion did not exist in antiquity, and change
> >was really slow and highly localized.
> >
> >It's thus imprudent to dismiss Roman knowledge of Germania as irrelevant to
> >the issue at hand.
>
> Is that what you have been trying to lead up to? But then the
> populations of Europe changed enormously over a thousand years.
Describe those "enormous" changes from 1200 BC to 200 BC, other than iron replacing copper in the Germanic peoples.
> >>
> >> It's a thousand years too late.
> >
> >Is there an echo here? Did I not say that?
>
> Yes you did, but that didn't stop you from trying to use it.
> >
> >In history you can't work with what you haven't got.
> >
> >A thousand years is a long time but I repeat, change was slow.
> >
> >You see chariots in Troy and you see chariots against Alexander some
> >850 years later.
> >
> >Innovations did not propagate widely or quickly. Siegecraft is a major
> >example.
> >
> >Assyrians had splendid siege towers, and battering rams and scaling
> >ladders were known way before. The Hittites uses large ramps to roll up
> >covered battering rams. Yet the armies of classical Greece made negligible use of siegecraft; until Alexander we don't see efficient siegecraft. And the Celtic and German tribal armies made little or no use of it a thousand years after 1200 BC. Even Hannibal (216 BC) could not take Rome after Cannae because of lack of siege engines.
> >
> >We are conditioned by modern progress and we expect things to be different and
> >better from year to year, but that notion did not exist in antiquity, and change
> >was really slow and highly localized.
> >
> >It's thus imprudent to dismiss Roman knowledge of Germania as irrelevant to
> >the issue at hand.
>
> Is that what you have been trying to lead up to? But then the
> populations of Europe changed enormously over a thousand years.
Eric Stevens
Aug 13, 2016, 11:44:55 PM8/13/16
to
On Sat, 13 Aug 2016 18:03:16 -0700 (PDT), Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net>
wrote:
>On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 7:47:11 PM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
>
>> >> >> You had to fudge the dates, didn't you?
>> >> >
>
>> >http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/longversionfinal.pdf
>> >
>> >First paragraph.
>>
>> That's taken from the Vostok ice core. Greenland tells a different
>> story.
>
>So what about my "fudging" the dates?
>
>> See also
>> http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/the-big-picture-65-million-years-of-temperature-swings/
>> Click on the graph to enlarge it.
>>
>
>You need to learn that in climate science, a young science, six years are
>an eternity. You present 2010 data to dispute 2016 data. It can't be done.
>
>The graph I showed you is GREENLAND data. Here it is again.
>
>https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/climate-civilization-gisp-chart.png
>
>Updated in 2016.
So you say. But it's not 2016 data. This is a technical essay by one
man. GISP2 is early 90s although it has been worked on since. The
author states at the beginning:
"The timeline shown in Figure 1 shows the GISP2 Central Greenland
ice core temperature proxies in blue and the HadCRUT 4.4 surface
temperature estimates for the same area in red."
Did you read the comments? They include:
"Also, the HadCRUT 4.4 record is updated in a way that was
influenced by politics and is not a trustworthy temperature record.
But even if it were, it could not be directly compared to the GISP2
record."
... all of which is generally accepted. Other than the comments, the
paper upon which you are relying has not been peer reviewed and it
certainly hasn't been peer reviewed before publication.
articles we have separately cited both show that while the Minoan warm
period was nearly over at the time proposed for the battle, it was far
from rock bottom.
The question was whether or not it was so cold as to preclude those so
inclined from fighting naked. Assuming the battle was fought at about
the estimated date, it wasn't necessarily tghat cold.
unreasonable question is indicated by http://tinyurl.com/z2mu2yw
assumption. The only reasonably certain thing is that they were
ornaments.
Regards,
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 7:47:11 PM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
>
>> >> >> You had to fudge the dates, didn't you?
>> >> >
>
>> >http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/longversionfinal.pdf
>> >
>> >First paragraph.
>>
>> That's taken from the Vostok ice core. Greenland tells a different
>> story.
>
>So what about my "fudging" the dates?
>
>> See also
>> http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/the-big-picture-65-million-years-of-temperature-swings/
>> Click on the graph to enlarge it.
>>
>
>You need to learn that in climate science, a young science, six years are
>an eternity. You present 2010 data to dispute 2016 data. It can't be done.
>
>The graph I showed you is GREENLAND data. Here it is again.
>
>https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/climate-civilization-gisp-chart.png
>
>Updated in 2016.
man. GISP2 is early 90s although it has been worked on since. The
author states at the beginning:
"The timeline shown in Figure 1 shows the GISP2 Central Greenland
ice core temperature proxies in blue and the HadCRUT 4.4 surface
temperature estimates for the same area in red."
Did you read the comments? They include:
"Also, the HadCRUT 4.4 record is updated in a way that was
influenced by politics and is not a trustworthy temperature record.
But even if it were, it could not be directly compared to the GISP2
record."
... all of which is generally accepted. Other than the comments, the
paper upon which you are relying has not been peer reviewed and it
certainly hasn't been peer reviewed before publication.
>
>It clearly shows that the Minoan Warm Period preceded the Tollense Valley Battle
>
>And, a mention from 2010 that the period happened "about 3200 years ago" does not change anything.
Nor does writing it in an essay. Nevertheless the graph in the
>It clearly shows that the Minoan Warm Period preceded the Tollense Valley Battle
>
>And, a mention from 2010 that the period happened "about 3200 years ago" does not change anything.
articles we have separately cited both show that while the Minoan warm
period was nearly over at the time proposed for the battle, it was far
from rock bottom.
>
>Why do you mention that period anyway? What is it the relevance to the
>Tollense Valley Battle?
So you have been arguing for no particular reason other than to argue?
>Why do you mention that period anyway? What is it the relevance to the
>Tollense Valley Battle?
The question was whether or not it was so cold as to preclude those so
inclined from fighting naked. Assuming the battle was fought at about
the estimated date, it wasn't necessarily tghat cold.
>
>
>> >Fighting naked was never a German tradition.
>>
>> You don't know that.
>
>I actually do.
>
>"German" and "Germania," are terms from classical times. They refer to
>tribes of central and north Europe known to the Romans, beyond their
>immediate neighbors. They are profusely documented, including their
>customs and traditions.
>
>>
>> You don't know that
>> fighting naked was widespread throughout Europe.
>
>And you do?
I don't. But that's why I raised it as a question.
>
>> >Fighting naked was never a German tradition.
>>
>> You don't know that.
>
>I actually do.
>
>"German" and "Germania," are terms from classical times. They refer to
>tribes of central and north Europe known to the Romans, beyond their
>immediate neighbors. They are profusely documented, including their
>customs and traditions.
>
>>
>> You don't know that
>> fighting naked was widespread throughout Europe.
>
>And you do?
>
>That's why I never said anything about the subject UNTIL you did.
>
>My point was that if they fought naked, which we don't know, the practice
>must have been discontinued because it's not documented by history.
>
>Since you started this, why don't you tell the readers, what is your basis
>to think that warriors of the Tollense Valley Battle fought naked?
>
>Do you see any naked warrior in the article's pictures?
>
>Support your claim/suggestion/idea, if you can.
>
I made no claim. I (twice) asked a question. That it was not an
>That's why I never said anything about the subject UNTIL you did.
>
>My point was that if they fought naked, which we don't know, the practice
>must have been discontinued because it's not documented by history.
>
>Since you started this, why don't you tell the readers, what is your basis
>to think that warriors of the Tollense Valley Battle fought naked?
>
>Do you see any naked warrior in the article's pictures?
>
>Support your claim/suggestion/idea, if you can.
>
unreasonable question is indicated by http://tinyurl.com/z2mu2yw
>
>> >> >> Do you see *any* remnants of clothing?
>> >> >
>> >> >Yes! tassles and garment ornaments. You have not even read the article!
>> >
>> >Did you see the PICTURES of "remnants of clothing" yet, stupido?
>>
>> I can't find any relevant photographs other than the ones included in
>> the direct site.
>
>Can't you, now? Look a again and again, I assure you they are there.
>
>Some of the object pictured are described as probably tassels and clothing ornaments, which suggest CLOTHING.
I saw all that. But that the ornaments were for clothing is an
>> >> >> Do you see *any* remnants of clothing?
>> >> >
>> >> >Yes! tassles and garment ornaments. You have not even read the article!
>> >
>> >Did you see the PICTURES of "remnants of clothing" yet, stupido?
>>
>> I can't find any relevant photographs other than the ones included in
>> the direct site.
>
>Can't you, now? Look a again and again, I assure you they are there.
>
>Some of the object pictured are described as probably tassels and clothing ornaments, which suggest CLOTHING.
assumption. The only reasonably certain thing is that they were
ornaments.
>
>Cataracts are a terrible thing.
--
>Cataracts are a terrible thing.
Regards,
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
Aug 13, 2016, 11:54:25 PM8/13/16
to
On Sat, 13 Aug 2016 15:35:12 -0700 (PDT), Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net>
wrote:
>On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 8:53:26 PM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
>
>>
>> Have you never heard of the Minoan Warm Period?
>>
>
>The reason Mr. Stevens mentions this, folks, is because it's a
>favorite go-to argument of climate change deniers, which he is.
What on earth makes you think I deny climate change?
be fixed with precision.
climate.
You really are an idiot.
3mm/year for several thousand years. There is nothing new in that
story.
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 8:53:26 PM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
>
>>
>> Have you never heard of the Minoan Warm Period?
>>
>
>The reason Mr. Stevens mentions this, folks, is because it's a
>favorite go-to argument of climate change deniers, which he is.
>
>Another one is the Roman Warm Period.
>
>It's unclear why Mr. Stevens mentioned the Minoan Warm Period in reference to
>the Tollense Valley Battle of 1200 BC, and warriors possibly fighting in the
>nude.
>
>Perhaps he will tell us, perhaps not since he must have realized by now
>that the Minoan Warm Period ended 100 years before the battle.
Only an ignoramus would think that dates that far back in history can
>Another one is the Roman Warm Period.
>
>It's unclear why Mr. Stevens mentioned the Minoan Warm Period in reference to
>the Tollense Valley Battle of 1200 BC, and warriors possibly fighting in the
>nude.
>
>Perhaps he will tell us, perhaps not since he must have realized by now
>that the Minoan Warm Period ended 100 years before the battle.
be fixed with precision.
>
>A fact he accused me of "fudging," an unfair accusation he will surely
>won't apologize for.
I certainly won't. Especially after you tried a different date.
>A fact he accused me of "fudging," an unfair accusation he will surely
>won't apologize for.
>
>These warm periods are the foundation of climate denies.
>
>Their simplistic argument goes like this: It was warmer than today during the
>Minoan/Roman Warm Period and civilization did not die, and there were no mass
>extinctions. Therefore, global warming is a natural thing and not caused by man.
You are an idiot.
>These warm periods are the foundation of climate denies.
>
>Their simplistic argument goes like this: It was warmer than today during the
>Minoan/Roman Warm Period and civilization did not die, and there were no mass
>extinctions. Therefore, global warming is a natural thing and not caused by man.
>
>Of course, the scientific consensus is that we know quite well why those
>warm periods took place, and involved various factors like solar activity,
>the earth's orbit and others.
Oh no. Those don't affect the climate. Only manmade CO2 affects the
>Of course, the scientific consensus is that we know quite well why those
>warm periods took place, and involved various factors like solar activity,
>the earth's orbit and others.
climate.
>
>So heating factors led to warmer periods in the past.
>
>The problem is that those heating factors are not present today.
What! No solar activity. Turn on the light somebody.
>So heating factors led to warmer periods in the past.
>
>The problem is that those heating factors are not present today.
You really are an idiot.
>
>If oscillations in solar radiation are a major factor in global warming,
>a distinct possibility, the sun's activity is presently moving in the wrong
>direction to cause any warming.
That's what the Russians have been saying for some time.
>If oscillations in solar radiation are a major factor in global warming,
>a distinct possibility, the sun's activity is presently moving in the wrong
>direction to cause any warming.
>
>Therefore, absent the factors seemingly responsible for past warm periods,
>that leaves US as the main cause of the current warming, sea-rising trend.
Apat from a few wiggles, the sea has been rising at approximately
>Therefore, absent the factors seemingly responsible for past warm periods,
>that leaves US as the main cause of the current warming, sea-rising trend.
3mm/year for several thousand years. There is nothing new in that
story.
>
>Got a better explanation? Tell NASA and if it pans out you'll have my
>admiration and that of far more important people in this field.
>
You really are an ignoramus and an idiot.
>Got a better explanation? Tell NASA and if it pans out you'll have my
>admiration and that of far more important people in this field.
>
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
Tiglath
Aug 14, 2016, 12:26:54 AM8/14/16
to
We are talking about the People in the Baltic region, remember...
In 1200 BC civilization was concentrated in the Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean. Then came the Etruscans, Greeks, Macedonians, and Romans.
You'll find that any "enormous change" that deserve the name happened in those
civilizations. From iron metallurgy, to the alphabet, the advent of written
history, Greek art science and philosophy, military changes like the trireme, the Macedonian phalanx, the Roman legion, the crossbow and siege engines, all are found in the day's superpowers and top civilizations.
Germany?
Some changes trickled in, like iron products, since the neighboring
Celts excelled at them, but what other change in the Baltic, later called
Germanic, peoples can you detail, from 1200 to 200 BC that would qualify as
"enormous."?
Show me (with evidence).
Tiglath
Aug 14, 2016, 12:57:29 AM8/14/16
to
On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 11:44:55 PM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
>> Why do you mention that period anyway?
>> What is it the relevance to the Tollense Valley Battle?
>
>> Why do you mention that period anyway?
>> What is it the relevance to the Tollense Valley Battle?
>
> The question was whether or not it was so cold as to preclude those so
> inclined from fighting naked. Assuming the battle was fought at about
> the estimated date, it wasn't necessarily tghat cold.
> >
So you AGAIN, argue from the ice-core temperature fluctuations in Greenland, on a chart where individual years are indistinguishable, to a single week of
> inclined from fighting naked. Assuming the battle was fought at about
> the estimated date, it wasn't necessarily tghat cold.
> >
unknown date in the Baltic region where a battle was fought, for the purpose of
determining if warriors could have been comfortably fighting in the nude.
You are batshit crazy, oldster.
> >
> >> >Fighting naked was never a German tradition.
> >>
> >> You don't know that.
> >
> >I actually do.
> >
> >"German" and "Germania," are terms from classical times. They refer to
> >tribes of central and north Europe known to the Romans, beyond their
> >immediate neighbors. They are profusely documented, including their
> >customs and traditions.
> >
> >>
> >> You don't know that
> >> fighting naked was widespread throughout Europe.
> >
> >And you do?
>
> I don't. But that's why I raised it as a question.
> >
> >That's why I never said anything about the subject UNTIL you did.
> >
> >My point was that if they fought naked, which we don't know, the practice
> >must have been discontinued because it's not documented by history.
> >
> >Since you started this, why don't you tell the readers, what is your basis
> >to think that warriors of the Tollense Valley Battle fought naked?
> >
> >Do you see any naked warrior in the article's pictures?
> >
> >Support your claim/suggestion/idea, if you can.
> >
> I made no claim.
Your question was asking for confirmation of whether they fought naked because
of their tradition to do so. It is not the same thing.
You wrote:
"Didn't many of them traditionally fight naked?"
That assumes that you know who "them" are and that they had a tradition.
I then asked you who is "them" and what tradition you are talking about.
You evaded the question, and next you posted about naked Gauls, which I told
you were irrelevant.
Don't change your song now. It is clearly written.
You confused the Gauls with the Germans. Admit it.
> I saw all that. But that the ornaments were for clothing is an
> assumption. The only reasonably certain thing is that they were
> ornaments.
Tiglath
Aug 14, 2016, 1:08:32 AM8/14/16
to
On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 11:54:25 PM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
> Only an ignoramus would think that dates that far back in history can
> be fixed with precision.
You are obviously unaware of the precision of ice-core dating. They can see
> Only an ignoramus would think that dates that far back in history can
> be fixed with precision.
single years in the ice, and even seasonal changes in the year, just like tree rings. Don't have to take my word for it, check it out.
Only when ice gets near the rocky bottom becomes corrupted or too compressed to reveal individual years, something that would not occur going back just a few thousand years.
Get thee to a library. Hurry.
> You really are an ignoramus and an idiot.
with great precision down to the year, as recently as 3300 years ago.
As a janitor would.
Eric Stevens
Aug 14, 2016, 5:14:12 AM8/14/16
to
On Sat, 13 Aug 2016 21:57:28 -0700 (PDT), Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net>
wrote:
>On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 11:44:55 PM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
>
>>> Why do you mention that period anyway?
>>> What is it the relevance to the Tollense Valley Battle?
>>
>> The question was whether or not it was so cold as to preclude those so
>> inclined from fighting naked. Assuming the battle was fought at about
>> the estimated date, it wasn't necessarily tghat cold.
>> >
>
>So you AGAIN, argue from the ice-core temperature fluctuations in Greenland, on a chart where individual years are indistinguishable, to a single week of
>unknown date in the Baltic region where a battle was fought, for the purpose of
>determining if warriors could have been comfortably fighting in the nude.
>
>You are batshit crazy, oldster.
So are you if you think you can pin down the battle to any particular
week.
"Didn't many of them traditionally fight naked?".
Parse that as you will.
Don't make me laugh.
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 11:44:55 PM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
>
>>> Why do you mention that period anyway?
>>> What is it the relevance to the Tollense Valley Battle?
>>
>> The question was whether or not it was so cold as to preclude those so
>> inclined from fighting naked. Assuming the battle was fought at about
>> the estimated date, it wasn't necessarily tghat cold.
>> >
>
>So you AGAIN, argue from the ice-core temperature fluctuations in Greenland, on a chart where individual years are indistinguishable, to a single week of
>unknown date in the Baltic region where a battle was fought, for the purpose of
>determining if warriors could have been comfortably fighting in the nude.
>
>You are batshit crazy, oldster.
week.
>
>
>
>> >
>> >> >Fighting naked was never a German tradition.
>> >>
>> >> You don't know that.
>> >
>> >I actually do.
>> >
>> >"German" and "Germania," are terms from classical times. They refer to
>> >tribes of central and north Europe known to the Romans, beyond their
>> >immediate neighbors. They are profusely documented, including their
>> >customs and traditions.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> You don't know that
>> >> fighting naked was widespread throughout Europe.
>> >
>> >And you do?
>>
>> I don't. But that's why I raised it as a question.
>> >
>> >That's why I never said anything about the subject UNTIL you did.
>> >
>> >My point was that if they fought naked, which we don't know, the practice
>> >must have been discontinued because it's not documented by history.
>> >
>> >Since you started this, why don't you tell the readers, what is your basis
>> >to think that warriors of the Tollense Valley Battle fought naked?
>> >
>> >Do you see any naked warrior in the article's pictures?
>> >
>> >Support your claim/suggestion/idea, if you can.
>> >
>> I made no claim.
>
>Your question was not asking if any fought naked.
>
>Your question was asking for confirmation of whether they fought naked because
>of their tradition to do so. It is not the same thing.
That may or may not be the case. My question was
>
>
>> >
>> >> >Fighting naked was never a German tradition.
>> >>
>> >> You don't know that.
>> >
>> >I actually do.
>> >
>> >"German" and "Germania," are terms from classical times. They refer to
>> >tribes of central and north Europe known to the Romans, beyond their
>> >immediate neighbors. They are profusely documented, including their
>> >customs and traditions.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> You don't know that
>> >> fighting naked was widespread throughout Europe.
>> >
>> >And you do?
>>
>> I don't. But that's why I raised it as a question.
>> >
>> >That's why I never said anything about the subject UNTIL you did.
>> >
>> >My point was that if they fought naked, which we don't know, the practice
>> >must have been discontinued because it's not documented by history.
>> >
>> >Since you started this, why don't you tell the readers, what is your basis
>> >to think that warriors of the Tollense Valley Battle fought naked?
>> >
>> >Do you see any naked warrior in the article's pictures?
>> >
>> >Support your claim/suggestion/idea, if you can.
>> >
>> I made no claim.
>
>Your question was not asking if any fought naked.
>
>Your question was asking for confirmation of whether they fought naked because
>of their tradition to do so. It is not the same thing.
"Didn't many of them traditionally fight naked?".
Parse that as you will.
>
>You wrote:
>
>"Didn't many of them traditionally fight naked?"
>
>That assumes that you know who "them" are and that they had a tradition.
>
>I then asked you who is "them" and what tradition you are talking about.
>
>You evaded the question, and next you posted about naked Gauls, which I told
>you were irrelevant.
I never mentioned Gauls.
>You wrote:
>
>"Didn't many of them traditionally fight naked?"
>
>That assumes that you know who "them" are and that they had a tradition.
>
>I then asked you who is "them" and what tradition you are talking about.
>
>You evaded the question, and next you posted about naked Gauls, which I told
>you were irrelevant.
>
>Don't change your song now. It is clearly written.
>
>You confused the Gauls with the Germans. Admit it.
>
>
>> I saw all that. But that the ornaments were for clothing is an
>> assumption. The only reasonably certain thing is that they were
>> ornaments.
>
>That is not what the experts wrote. And you don't seem to know what tassels are. Clothing ornaments and jewelry are clearly distinguishable to archeologists.
Experts in a battle culture which has not yet been identified?
>Don't change your song now. It is clearly written.
>
>You confused the Gauls with the Germans. Admit it.
>
>
>> I saw all that. But that the ornaments were for clothing is an
>> assumption. The only reasonably certain thing is that they were
>> ornaments.
>
>That is not what the experts wrote. And you don't seem to know what tassels are. Clothing ornaments and jewelry are clearly distinguishable to archeologists.
Don't make me laugh.
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
Aug 14, 2016, 5:21:34 AM8/14/16
to
On Sat, 13 Aug 2016 20:28:01 -0700 (PDT), Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net>
wrote:
Read this for a start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migration_Period
You will find more in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-modern_human_migration
... and more http://tinyurl.com/hzgdr88
... and again
http://www.let.leidenuniv.nl/history/migration/chapter113.html
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
wrote:
You will find more in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-modern_human_migration
... and more http://tinyurl.com/hzgdr88
... and again
http://www.let.leidenuniv.nl/history/migration/chapter113.html
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
Aug 14, 2016, 5:23:22 AM8/14/16
to
On Sat, 13 Aug 2016 21:26:51 -0700 (PDT), Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net>
time.
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 11:28:03 PM UTC-4, Tiglath wrote:
>> On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 7:57:24 PM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
>
>> >
>> > Is that what you have been trying to lead up to? But then the
>> > populations of Europe changed enormously over a thousand years.
>>
>> Describe those "enormous" changes from 1200 BC to 200 BC, other than iron > replacing copper in the Germanic peoples.
>
>Let me get you started...
>
>We are talking about the People in the Baltic region, remember...
No. We are talking about people who were in the Baltic region at the
>On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 11:28:03 PM UTC-4, Tiglath wrote:
>> On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 7:57:24 PM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
>
>> >
>> > Is that what you have been trying to lead up to? But then the
>> > populations of Europe changed enormously over a thousand years.
>>
>> Describe those "enormous" changes from 1200 BC to 200 BC, other than iron > replacing copper in the Germanic peoples.
>
>Let me get you started...
>
>We are talking about the People in the Baltic region, remember...
time.
>
>In 1200 BC civilization was concentrated in the Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean. Then came the Etruscans, Greeks, Macedonians, and Romans.
Says who?
>In 1200 BC civilization was concentrated in the Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean. Then came the Etruscans, Greeks, Macedonians, and Romans.
>
>You'll find that any "enormous change" that deserve the name happened in those
>civilizations. From iron metallurgy, to the alphabet, the advent of written
>history, Greek art science and philosophy, military changes like the trireme, the Macedonian phalanx, the Roman legion, the crossbow and siege engines, all are found in the day's superpowers and top civilizations.
>
>Germany?
>
>Some changes trickled in, like iron products, since the neighboring
>Celts excelled at them, but what other change in the Baltic, later called
>Germanic, peoples can you detail, from 1200 to 200 BC that would qualify as
>"enormous."?
>
>Show me (with evidence).
>
You are not worth the effort.
>You'll find that any "enormous change" that deserve the name happened in those
>civilizations. From iron metallurgy, to the alphabet, the advent of written
>history, Greek art science and philosophy, military changes like the trireme, the Macedonian phalanx, the Roman legion, the crossbow and siege engines, all are found in the day's superpowers and top civilizations.
>
>Germany?
>
>Some changes trickled in, like iron products, since the neighboring
>Celts excelled at them, but what other change in the Baltic, later called
>Germanic, peoples can you detail, from 1200 to 200 BC that would qualify as
>"enormous."?
>
>Show me (with evidence).
>
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
Aug 14, 2016, 5:26:26 AM8/14/16
to
On Sat, 13 Aug 2016 22:08:31 -0700 (PDT), Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net>
wrote:
>On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 11:54:25 PM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
>
>
>> Only an ignoramus would think that dates that far back in history can
>> be fixed with precision.
>
>You are obviously unaware of the precision of ice-core dating. They can see
>single years in the ice, and even seasonal changes in the year, just like tree rings. Don't have to take my word for it, check it out.
I have years ago. Do you know that it takes about 25 years for snow to
freeze to the point where gases will not significantly diffuse through
it? The record is blurred by the time it is encapsulated in solid ice.
>
>As a janitor would.
>
>
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 11:54:25 PM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
>
>
>> Only an ignoramus would think that dates that far back in history can
>> be fixed with precision.
>
>You are obviously unaware of the precision of ice-core dating. They can see
>single years in the ice, and even seasonal changes in the year, just like tree rings. Don't have to take my word for it, check it out.
freeze to the point where gases will not significantly diffuse through
it? The record is blurred by the time it is encapsulated in solid ice.
>
>Only when ice gets near the rocky bottom becomes corrupted or too compressed to reveal individual years, something that would not occur going back just a few thousand years.
>
>Get thee to a library. Hurry.
>
>
>> You really are an ignoramus and an idiot.
>
>It's you who thinks that ice cores can't tell us of temperature fluctuations
>with great precision down to the year, as recently as 3300 years ago.
There is much arguing about the exact dating of ice layers.
>Only when ice gets near the rocky bottom becomes corrupted or too compressed to reveal individual years, something that would not occur going back just a few thousand years.
>
>Get thee to a library. Hurry.
>
>
>> You really are an ignoramus and an idiot.
>
>It's you who thinks that ice cores can't tell us of temperature fluctuations
>with great precision down to the year, as recently as 3300 years ago.
>
>As a janitor would.
>
>
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
Robert Mulain
Aug 14, 2016, 7:55:44 AM8/14/16
to
> >So heating factors led to warmer periods in the past.
> >
> >The problem is that those heating factors are not present today.
>
> What! No solar activity. Turn on the light somebody.
>
> You really are an idiot.
> >
> >If oscillations in solar radiation are a major factor in global warming,
> >a distinct possibility, the sun's activity is presently moving in the wrong
> >direction to cause any warming.
Reversal of the magnetic field.
Change in O2/CO2 balance.
Frozen methane under the sea.
Escapes of natural gas.
Drifts in oceanic currents.
Ditto in Jetstream.
Salinity of seawater.
Earths albedo going up and down due to polar ice quantities.
Altogether, and all dependent on each other to some extent, it is a complex, massive and still (even with modern computers) beyond calculation/reliable prediction right now. Truly 'Catastrophe Theory' stuff - and I just saw a butterfly flap its wings in the garden! And a pair of Magpies... it looks like trouble ahead somewhere!
>
> That's what the Russians have been saying for some time.
> >Therefore, absent the factors seemingly responsible for past warm periods,
> >that leaves US as the main cause of the current warming, sea-rising trend.
>
> Apat from a few wiggles, the sea has been rising at approximately
> 3mm/year for several thousand years. There is nothing new in that
> story.
> >
> >Got a better explanation? Tell NASA and if it pans out you'll have my
> >admiration and that of far more important people in this field.
> >
> You really are an ignoramus and an idiot.
Tiglath
Aug 14, 2016, 12:02:14 PM8/14/16
to
On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 5:14:12 AM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
> >So you AGAIN, argue from the ice-core temperature fluctuations in Greenland, on a chart where individual years are indistinguishable, to a single week of
> >unknown date in the Baltic region where a battle was fought, for the purpose of
> >determining if warriors could have been comfortably fighting in the nude.
> >
> >You are batshit crazy, oldster.
>
> So are you if you think you can pin down the battle to any particular
> week.
I have no idea of the date or season of the battle, the very year may be an
> >So you AGAIN, argue from the ice-core temperature fluctuations in Greenland, on a chart where individual years are indistinguishable, to a single week of
> >unknown date in the Baltic region where a battle was fought, for the purpose of
> >determining if warriors could have been comfortably fighting in the nude.
> >
> >You are batshit crazy, oldster.
>
> So are you if you think you can pin down the battle to any particular
> week.
approximation too.
What troubles me is that you believe that climate change as measured in
Greenland can be related to local weather elsewhere.
Ask yourself. Can the Greenland ice tell that in 1976 England had
no summer? It was cold, no bikinis on the beach, I was there. It was fine
weather in Sweden and Spain.
That should tell you the kind of nonsense you spouse.
I thought you were well read on climate change, but that removed the notion, in addition to the realization that you had no clue that ice cores provide
reliable annual climate data.
What did you do in life, Mr. Stevens? No discernible skill filters through
from your writings, you seem to be equally incompetent on all subjects.
So...
That just got you a Fourth Gold Medal, janitor.
It's going on the List. And for brevity I will use this language
if that's OK with you.
From this exchange:
------
"Why do you mention that [Minoan Warm] period anyway?
What is the relevance to the Tollense Valley Battle?"
"The question was whether or not it was so cold as to preclude those so
inclined from fighting naked. Assuming the battle was fought at about
the estimated date, it wasn't necessarily tghat cold."
To this summary:
Mr. Stevens believes that the Minoan Warm Period as revealed by
ice-cores in Antarctica and Greenland indicates that people in
the Baltic area north of Berlin could have gone naked outdoors
comfortably in 1200 BC, in any season.
It's a fair representation, right?
I reserve the right to add to it evidence the such period preceded that
date, which will make your conviction worse nonsense that it is already.
Tiglath
Aug 14, 2016, 12:18:05 PM8/14/16
to
On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 5:14:12 AM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
> >
> >You evaded the question, and next you posted about naked Gauls, which I told
> >you were irrelevant.
>
> I never mentioned Gauls.
You are either lying or very stupid. Your choice.
> >
> >You evaded the question, and next you posted about naked Gauls, which I told
> >you were irrelevant.
>
> I never mentioned Gauls.
You actually did, moron.
You posted:
------
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudity_in_combat
"Polybius' Histories describe how the Gaesatae, hired by other
-------
What do you think the Gaesatae, Boii and the Insubres were?
It sucks discussing history with you, you are as bad as the slug.
> >
> >> I saw all that. But that the ornaments were for clothing is an
> >> assumption. The only reasonably certain thing is that they were
> >> ornaments.
> >
> >That is not what the experts wrote. And you don't seem to know what tassels are. Clothing ornaments and jewelry are clearly distinguishable to archeologists.
>
> Experts in a battle culture which has not yet been identified?
jewelry and the tassels and fasteners of clothing, which you have at hand.
> Don't make me laugh.
Tiglath
Aug 14, 2016, 12:37:19 PM8/14/16
to
On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 5:21:34 AM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
> >>
> >> Is that what you have been trying to lead up to? But then the
> >> populations of Europe changed enormously over a thousand years.
> >
> >Describe those "enormous" changes from 1200 BC to 200 BC, other than iron replacing copper in the Germanic peoples.
>
> Read this for a start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migration_Period
First line: "This article is about European migrations in the middle of the first millennium AD."
> >>
> >> Is that what you have been trying to lead up to? But then the
> >> populations of Europe changed enormously over a thousand years.
> >
> >Describe those "enormous" changes from 1200 BC to 200 BC, other than iron replacing copper in the Germanic peoples.
>
> Read this for a start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migration_Period
Do you see AD there? Those cataracts again...
This is about global human migrations, nothing there specific to the
Germain peoples between 1200 BC and 200 BC, the thousand years you claim
had "enormous" changes.
That is a search for "European population movements first century bc
with a map of migrations in central Asia. Do you know that the first
century BC is the years 100-0 BC?
Finally something that might have been relevant.
"600-100 B.C.: Strictly speaking there were two main streams of migrating Germans, namely West-Germans and East-Germans. The West-Germans were the most well known due to their contact with the Romans, and can be subdivided into Germanic tribes near the North Sea (Chaukes, Frisians and Batavians), between the Rhine and Elbe (Ubians, Sugambri, Chamavi, Cherusci and Chatti) and in Central and Southern Germany (Hermunduri, Marcomanni and Quades in the Danu be area). At the end of the first century B.C. the West-German population remained relatively stable, in that they did not mix with any other groups. The East-Germanic tribes on the other hand were constantly renewed by and mixed with people travelling from Northern Germany and Poland through the valleys of the Oder and Vistula."
Unfortunately it's only people moving around, no evidence whatsoever
of any "enormous" changes that would radically change they way of dress
or fighting or traditions of the Germanic people.
In other words, you come up empty again, as one might expect.
You don't even know what 1200 BC to 200 BC means, it appears.
Watch this, folks:
Mr. Stevens googles for "European population movements first century bc"
to find evidence of "enormous changes" in the Germanic peoples in the
thousand years between 1200 and 200 BC.
Is that because people in New Zealand are upside-down?
Tiglath
Aug 14, 2016, 12:49:48 PM8/14/16
to
On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 5:23:22 AM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
> > In 1200 BC civilization was concentrated in the Near East and the Eastern
> > Mediterranean. Then came the Etruscans, Greeks, Macedonians, and Romans.
>
> Says who?
It's a long list. It starts with Herodotus, the Father of History.
> > In 1200 BC civilization was concentrated in the Near East and the Eastern
> > Mediterranean. Then came the Etruscans, Greeks, Macedonians, and Romans.
>
> Says who?
We also have tens of thousands of clay tablets and hieroglyphics from those civilizations, telling us themselves. Then came actual papyri libraries,
whose contents were luckily copied to durable parchment by Christian monks.
That's who.
Where is the history of the Germanic people from 1200 to 200 BC, revealing
enormous societal changes, you seem to know about?
> >
> >Germany?
> >
> >Some changes trickled in, like iron products, since the neighboring
> >Celts excelled at them, but what other change in the Baltic, later called
> >Germanic, peoples can you detail, from 1200 to 200 BC that would qualify as
> >"enormous."?
> >
> >Show me (with evidence).
> >
> You are not worth the effort.
You would be doing it for you, so that you actually support at least once
the claims you make in public.
If you bother writing a claim at all why not support it adequately
so that people will tend you believe you the next time?
But you like shooting from the hip, instead, right?
That's why you have Gruyere cheese feet.
Sigurdr Volsung
Aug 14, 2016, 1:20:27 PM8/14/16
to
Please elaborate precisely what you mean by Gaulish or Celtic tribes. Do they have any or all of the following:-
Ethnic affinity
Tribal affinity
Genetic affinity
Linguistic affinity
Cultural affinity
Blood group affinity
?
Or are you just saying that because they could draw beautiful La Tène designs they must all be hugely related to one another?
BAH!
Ethnic affinity
Tribal affinity
Genetic affinity
Linguistic affinity
Cultural affinity
Blood group affinity
?
Or are you just saying that because they could draw beautiful La Tène designs they must all be hugely related to one another?
BAH!
Tiglath
Aug 14, 2016, 1:29:23 PM8/14/16
to
> On Sunday, 14 August 2016 04:54:25 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
> > > Have you never heard of the Minoan Warm Period?
> > The reason Mr. Stevens mentions this, folks, is because it's a
> > favorite go-to argument of climate change deniers, which he is.
> What on earth makes you think I deny climate change?
Only that these days "climate change" is an abbreviation of
anthropocentric climate change, but the Internet Refuter in you does not
let you make the connection.
Yes, folks, Mr. Stevens is a wild advocate of anthropocentric climate change
denial. He thinks it's going to be fine if we keep increasing our carbon
emissions and that climate change is natural and nothing to worry about.
He also believes this (now FOUR) other curious things.
1. "Both the heliocentric model and the geocentric model of Earth
are correct."
2. "The motions of the planets with respect to each other and the sun
remain constant irrespective of whether the model is geo or helio
centric."
3. (Implyed by his question) "This is a serious question. You postulate
a 'still' sun. That is, that the sun is not moving. What is your
reference point against which you determine the (lack of) motion
of the sun?"
4. (Latest addition - climate/weather confusion) Mr. Stevens believes that
Tiglath
Aug 14, 2016, 1:41:37 PM8/14/16
to
On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 7:55:44 AM UTC-4, Robert Mulain wrote:
>
> I have several ideas to reverse this trend if yo're interested? Some to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, some to reduce global warming from the Sun...
Clean energy makes a better world, even if ACC was not happening.
>
> I have several ideas to reverse this trend if yo're interested? Some to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, some to reduce global warming from the Sun...
As years pass and the science gets better, not to mention the symptoms getting
more alarming, deniers like Mr. Stevens will be marginalized like
flat-earthers.
He'll then be able to claim membership to TWO batshit societies, the
climate deniers and the geocentrists.
Do you think he might recant in his death bed?
And admit that we should stop burning coal and that the earth might after all
go around the sun?
Perhaps a deacon, priest, or minister will help him see the light in the
final moments.
Hope so.
Tiglath
Aug 14, 2016, 1:51:05 PM8/14/16
to
On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 1:20:27 PM UTC-4, Sigurdr Volsung wrote:
> Please elaborate precisely what you mean by Gaulish or Celtic tribes.
<>
It's August slug. You are drying up in the sun and making strange sounds.
> Please elaborate precisely what you mean by Gaulish or Celtic tribes.
<>
Eric Stevens
Aug 14, 2016, 5:03:52 PM8/14/16
to
On Sun, 14 Aug 2016 10:29:22 -0700 (PDT), Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net>
wrote:
>
only manmade cause of climate change is CO2.
How then do you explain the temperature wiggles in the graph you have
cited over the last few days? http://tinyurl.com/jxscabr
into the atmosphere as though it is an infinitely large sink. I also
think the part played by CO2 in global warming has been greatly
exagerated (Just compare predictions with actual temperatures) and
that there are other things that man has done which have a larger
effect on global temperature.
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>
>> On Sunday, 14 August 2016 04:54:25 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
>
>> > > Have you never heard of the Minoan Warm Period?
>
>
>> > The reason Mr. Stevens mentions this, folks, is because it's a
>> > favorite go-to argument of climate change deniers, which he is.
>
>> What on earth makes you think I deny climate change?
>
>
>Ok I get it, you don't deny "climate change."
>
>Only that these days "climate change" is an abbreviation of
>anthropocentric climate change, but the Internet Refuter in you does not
>let you make the connection.
So in your world there are no natural causes of climate change and the
>
>> > > Have you never heard of the Minoan Warm Period?
>
>
>> > The reason Mr. Stevens mentions this, folks, is because it's a
>> > favorite go-to argument of climate change deniers, which he is.
>
>> What on earth makes you think I deny climate change?
>
>
>Ok I get it, you don't deny "climate change."
>
>Only that these days "climate change" is an abbreviation of
>anthropocentric climate change, but the Internet Refuter in you does not
>let you make the connection.
only manmade cause of climate change is CO2.
How then do you explain the temperature wiggles in the graph you have
cited over the last few days? http://tinyurl.com/jxscabr
>
>Yes, folks, Mr. Stevens is a wild advocate of anthropocentric climate change
>denial. He thinks it's going to be fine if we keep increasing our carbon
>emissions and that climate change is natural and nothing to worry about.
I don't think its OK to go on mindlessly dumping CO2 and other things
>Yes, folks, Mr. Stevens is a wild advocate of anthropocentric climate change
>denial. He thinks it's going to be fine if we keep increasing our carbon
>emissions and that climate change is natural and nothing to worry about.
into the atmosphere as though it is an infinitely large sink. I also
think the part played by CO2 in global warming has been greatly
exagerated (Just compare predictions with actual temperatures) and
that there are other things that man has done which have a larger
effect on global temperature.
>
>He also believes this (now FOUR) other curious things.
>
>
>1. "Both the heliocentric model and the geocentric model of Earth
> are correct."
>
>2. "The motions of the planets with respect to each other and the sun
> remain constant irrespective of whether the model is geo or helio
> centric."
>
>3. (Implyed by his question) "This is a serious question. You postulate
> a 'still' sun. That is, that the sun is not moving. What is your
> reference point against which you determine the (lack of) motion
> of the sun?"
>
>4. (Latest addition - climate/weather confusion) Mr. Stevens believes that
> the Minoan Warm Period as revealed by ice-cores in Antarctica and
> Greenland indicates that people in the Baltic area north of Berlin
> could have gone naked outdoors comfortably in 1200 BC, in any season.
Who said anything about them being comfortable?
>He also believes this (now FOUR) other curious things.
>
>
>1. "Both the heliocentric model and the geocentric model of Earth
> are correct."
>
>2. "The motions of the planets with respect to each other and the sun
> remain constant irrespective of whether the model is geo or helio
> centric."
>
>3. (Implyed by his question) "This is a serious question. You postulate
> a 'still' sun. That is, that the sun is not moving. What is your
> reference point against which you determine the (lack of) motion
> of the sun?"
>
>4. (Latest addition - climate/weather confusion) Mr. Stevens believes that
> the Minoan Warm Period as revealed by ice-cores in Antarctica and
> Greenland indicates that people in the Baltic area north of Berlin
> could have gone naked outdoors comfortably in 1200 BC, in any season.
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
Aug 14, 2016, 5:18:19 PM8/14/16
to
On Sun, 14 Aug 2016 09:02:13 -0700 (PDT), Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net>
wrote:
>On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 5:14:12 AM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
>
>> >So you AGAIN, argue from the ice-core temperature fluctuations in Greenland, on a chart where individual years are indistinguishable, to a single week of
>> >unknown date in the Baltic region where a battle was fought, for the purpose of
>> >determining if warriors could have been comfortably fighting in the nude.
>> >
>> >You are batshit crazy, oldster.
>>
>> So are you if you think you can pin down the battle to any particular
>> week.
>
>I have no idea of the date or season of the battle, the very year may be an
>approximation too.
>
>What troubles me is that you believe that climate change as measured in
>Greenland can be related to local weather elsewhere.
How can you justify that nonsense?
that I have already told you that atmospheric gases are free to
migrate through the porosities of snow for somewhere about 25 years
after the snow has fallen. Ice records are not high-definition
temperature recorders.
Regards,
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 5:14:12 AM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
>
>> >So you AGAIN, argue from the ice-core temperature fluctuations in Greenland, on a chart where individual years are indistinguishable, to a single week of
>> >unknown date in the Baltic region where a battle was fought, for the purpose of
>> >determining if warriors could have been comfortably fighting in the nude.
>> >
>> >You are batshit crazy, oldster.
>>
>> So are you if you think you can pin down the battle to any particular
>> week.
>
>I have no idea of the date or season of the battle, the very year may be an
>approximation too.
>
>What troubles me is that you believe that climate change as measured in
>Greenland can be related to local weather elsewhere.
>
>Ask yourself. Can the Greenland ice tell that in 1976 England had
>no summer? It was cold, no bikinis on the beach, I was there. It was fine
>weather in Sweden and Spain.
You are conflating weather with climate. You seem to have forgotten
>Ask yourself. Can the Greenland ice tell that in 1976 England had
>no summer? It was cold, no bikinis on the beach, I was there. It was fine
>weather in Sweden and Spain.
that I have already told you that atmospheric gases are free to
migrate through the porosities of snow for somewhere about 25 years
after the snow has fallen. Ice records are not high-definition
temperature recorders.
>
>That should tell you the kind of nonsense you spouse.
>
>I thought you were well read on climate change, but that removed the notion, in addition to the realization that you had no clue that ice cores provide
>reliable annual climate data.
Haw!
>That should tell you the kind of nonsense you spouse.
>
>I thought you were well read on climate change, but that removed the notion, in addition to the realization that you had no clue that ice cores provide
>reliable annual climate data.
>
>What did you do in life, Mr. Stevens? No discernible skill filters through
>from your writings, you seem to be equally incompetent on all subjects.
>
>So...
>
>That just got you a Fourth Gold Medal, janitor.
>
>It's going on the List. And for brevity I will use this language
>if that's OK with you.
>
>From this exchange:
>
>------
>"Why do you mention that [Minoan Warm] period anyway?
>What is the relevance to the Tollense Valley Battle?"
>
>"The question was whether or not it was so cold as to preclude those so
>inclined from fighting naked. Assuming the battle was fought at about
>the estimated date, it wasn't necessarily tghat cold."
>------
>
>To this summary:
>
>Mr. Stevens believes that the Minoan Warm Period as revealed by
>ice-cores in Antarctica and Greenland indicates that people in
>the Baltic area north of Berlin could have gone naked outdoors
>comfortably in 1200 BC, in any season.
>
>It's a fair representation, right?
I've corrected it elsewhere.
>What did you do in life, Mr. Stevens? No discernible skill filters through
>from your writings, you seem to be equally incompetent on all subjects.
>
>So...
>
>That just got you a Fourth Gold Medal, janitor.
>
>It's going on the List. And for brevity I will use this language
>if that's OK with you.
>
>From this exchange:
>
>------
>"Why do you mention that [Minoan Warm] period anyway?
>What is the relevance to the Tollense Valley Battle?"
>
>"The question was whether or not it was so cold as to preclude those so
>inclined from fighting naked. Assuming the battle was fought at about
>the estimated date, it wasn't necessarily tghat cold."
>------
>
>To this summary:
>
>Mr. Stevens believes that the Minoan Warm Period as revealed by
>ice-cores in Antarctica and Greenland indicates that people in
>the Baltic area north of Berlin could have gone naked outdoors
>comfortably in 1200 BC, in any season.
>
>It's a fair representation, right?
>
>I reserve the right to add to it evidence the such period preceded that
>date, which will make your conviction worse nonsense that it is already.
>
>
>
>
--
>I reserve the right to add to it evidence the such period preceded that
>date, which will make your conviction worse nonsense that it is already.
>
>
>
>
Regards,
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
Aug 14, 2016, 5:21:16 PM8/14/16
to
On Sun, 14 Aug 2016 09:49:46 -0700 (PDT), Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net>
wrote:
>On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 5:23:22 AM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
>
>> > In 1200 BC civilization was concentrated in the Near East and the Eastern
>> > Mediterranean. Then came the Etruscans, Greeks, Macedonians, and Romans.
>>
>> Says who?
>
>It's a long list. It starts with Herodotus, the Father of History.
>We also have tens of thousands of clay tablets and hieroglyphics from those civilizations, telling us themselves. Then came actual papyri libraries,
>whose contents were luckily copied to durable parchment by Christian monks.
>
>That's who.
>
>Where is the history of the Germanic people from 1200 to 200 BC, revealing
>enormous societal changes, you seem to know about?
>
One day someone will tell you about the science of archaeology,
Regards,
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 5:23:22 AM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
>
>> > In 1200 BC civilization was concentrated in the Near East and the Eastern
>> > Mediterranean. Then came the Etruscans, Greeks, Macedonians, and Romans.
>>
>> Says who?
>
>It's a long list. It starts with Herodotus, the Father of History.
>We also have tens of thousands of clay tablets and hieroglyphics from those civilizations, telling us themselves. Then came actual papyri libraries,
>whose contents were luckily copied to durable parchment by Christian monks.
>
>That's who.
>
>Where is the history of the Germanic people from 1200 to 200 BC, revealing
>enormous societal changes, you seem to know about?
>
>
>> >
>> >Germany?
>> >
>> >Some changes trickled in, like iron products, since the neighboring
>> >Celts excelled at them, but what other change in the Baltic, later called
>> >Germanic, peoples can you detail, from 1200 to 200 BC that would qualify as
>> >"enormous."?
>> >
>> >Show me (with evidence).
>> >
>> You are not worth the effort.
>
>You would not do it for me. I know this stuff.
>
>You would be doing it for you, so that you actually support at least once
>the claims you make in public.
>
>If you bother writing a claim at all why not support it adequately
>so that people will tend you believe you the next time?
>
>But you like shooting from the hip, instead, right?
>
>That's why you have Gruyere cheese feet.
--
>> >
>> >Germany?
>> >
>> >Some changes trickled in, like iron products, since the neighboring
>> >Celts excelled at them, but what other change in the Baltic, later called
>> >Germanic, peoples can you detail, from 1200 to 200 BC that would qualify as
>> >"enormous."?
>> >
>> >Show me (with evidence).
>> >
>> You are not worth the effort.
>
>You would not do it for me. I know this stuff.
>
>You would be doing it for you, so that you actually support at least once
>the claims you make in public.
>
>If you bother writing a claim at all why not support it adequately
>so that people will tend you believe you the next time?
>
>But you like shooting from the hip, instead, right?
>
>That's why you have Gruyere cheese feet.
Regards,
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
Aug 14, 2016, 5:24:27 PM8/14/16
to
On Sun, 14 Aug 2016 09:37:18 -0700 (PDT), Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net>
wrote:
That they were all germans is a conclusion to which you have jumped.
>
>
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>
>
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
Aug 14, 2016, 5:39:01 PM8/14/16
to
level where they were inhibiting plant life? The present increased
levels of CO2 have brought about increased greening world wide,
including the fringes of a number of deserts.
An interesting apparent from the Vostok ice cores is that CO2 levels
lag behind temperatures. See
http://www.climatedata.info/proxies/ice-cores/files/stacks_image_9591.png
It is interesting that the same applies to short term changes in
temperature and CO2
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658 the
CO2 lags behind behind the temperature change. It makes it rather hard
to argue that it is the change in CO2 which causes the change in
temperature.
>> >Therefore, absent the factors seemingly responsible for past warm periods,
>> >that leaves US as the main cause of the current warming, sea-rising trend.
>>
>> Apat from a few wiggles, the sea has been rising at approximately
>> 3mm/year for several thousand years. There is nothing new in that
>> story.
>> >
>> >Got a better explanation? Tell NASA and if it pans out you'll have my
>> >admiration and that of far more important people in this field.
>> >
>> You really are an ignoramus and an idiot.
>
>I have several ideas to reverse this trend if yo're interested? Some to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, some to reduce global warming from the Sun...
Regards,
Eric Stevens
Tiglath
Aug 14, 2016, 5:57:43 PM8/14/16
to
On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 5:03:52 PM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
>
> So in your world there are no natural causes of climate change and the
> only manmade cause of climate change is CO2.
A clumsy misrepresentation. I said very clearly that the natural causes
>
> So in your world there are no natural causes of climate change and the
> only manmade cause of climate change is CO2.
we've seen associated with global warming in past warm periods are not
present to justify the current global warming. It's called a clue.
4. (Latest addition - climate/weather confusion) Mr. Stevens believes that
> the Minoan Warm Period as revealed by ice-cores in Antarctica and
> Greenland indicates that people in the Baltic area north of Berlin
> could have gone naked outdoors comfortably in 1200 BC, in any season.
Who said anything about them being comfortable?
Don't you know that cold enemy soldiers is one of the main reasons why
Hannibal won his first large battle in Italy?
You are terribly ill-equipped for this discussion; you are comical.
Tiglath
Aug 14, 2016, 6:09:35 PM8/14/16
to
On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 5:18:19 PM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
> >
> >What troubles me is that you believe that climate change as measured in
> >Greenland can be related to local weather elsewhere.
>
> How can you justify that nonsense?
It's your nonsense, I was describing what you said, see Exhibit A below.
> >
> >What troubles me is that you believe that climate change as measured in
> >Greenland can be related to local weather elsewhere.
>
> How can you justify that nonsense?
> >
> >Ask yourself. Can the Greenland ice tell that in 1976 England had
> >no summer? It was cold, no bikinis on the beach, I was there. It was fine
> >weather in Sweden and Spain.
>
> You are conflating weather with climate.
Exhibit A
> >------
> >"Why do you mention that [Minoan Warm] period anyway?
> >What is the relevance to the Tollense Valley Battle?"
> >
> >"The question was whether or not it was so cold as to preclude those so
> >inclined from fighting naked. Assuming the battle was fought at about
> >the estimated date, it wasn't necessarily tghat cold."
> >------
THAT IS CONFUSING CLIMATE WITH WEATHER.
> >"Why do you mention that [Minoan Warm] period anyway?
> >What is the relevance to the Tollense Valley Battle?"
> >
> >"The question was whether or not it was so cold as to preclude those so
> >inclined from fighting naked. Assuming the battle was fought at about
> >the estimated date, it wasn't necessarily tghat cold."
> >------
YOU WROTE THAT.
Tiglath
Aug 14, 2016, 6:14:28 PM8/14/16
to
On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 5:21:16 PM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
> >
> >> > In 1200 BC civilization was concentrated in the Near East and the Eastern
> >> > Mediterranean. Then came the Etruscans, Greeks, Macedonians, and Romans.
> >>
> >> Says who?
> >
> >It's a long list. It starts with Herodotus, the Father of History.
> >We also have tens of thousands of clay tablets and hieroglyphics from those civilizations, telling us themselves. Then came actual papyri libraries,
> >whose contents were luckily copied to durable parchment by Christian monks.
> >
> >That's who.
> >
> >Where is the history of the Germanic people from 1200 to 200 BC, revealing
> >enormous societal changes, you seem to know about?
> >
> One day someone will tell you about the science of archaeology,
How would you know? You can't say anything on the subject you help yourself
> >
> >> > In 1200 BC civilization was concentrated in the Near East and the Eastern
> >> > Mediterranean. Then came the Etruscans, Greeks, Macedonians, and Romans.
> >>
> >> Says who?
> >
> >It's a long list. It starts with Herodotus, the Father of History.
> >We also have tens of thousands of clay tablets and hieroglyphics from those civilizations, telling us themselves. Then came actual papyri libraries,
> >whose contents were luckily copied to durable parchment by Christian monks.
> >
> >That's who.
> >
> >Where is the history of the Germanic people from 1200 to 200 BC, revealing
> >enormous societal changes, you seem to know about?
> >
> One day someone will tell you about the science of archaeology,
when your own claims leave you holding your dick on center stage, as you
are now.
AGAIN, folks, a man who is quick to ask for sources and evidence, comes short
of it, and won't have the grace to say, "I don't know."
Readers know you don't know, anyway, big mouth.
Tiglath
Aug 14, 2016, 6:22:13 PM8/14/16
to
On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 5:24:27 PM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Is that what you have been trying to lead up to? But then the
> >> >> populations of Europe changed enormously over a thousand years.
> >> >
> >> >Describe those "enormous" changes from 1200 BC to 200 BC, other than iron replacing copper in the Germanic peoples.
> >>
> >> Read this for a start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migration_Period
> >
> >First line: "This article is about European migrations in the middle of the first millennium AD."
> >
> >Do you see AD there? Those cataracts again...
> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Is that what you have been trying to lead up to? But then the
> >> >> populations of Europe changed enormously over a thousand years.
> >> >
> >> >Describe those "enormous" changes from 1200 BC to 200 BC, other than iron replacing copper in the Germanic peoples.
> >>
> >> Read this for a start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migration_Period
> >
> >First line: "This article is about European migrations in the middle of the first millennium AD."
> >
> >Do you see AD there? Those cataracts again...
> >
> >Watch this, folks:
> >
> >Mr. Stevens googles for "European population movements first century bc"
> >to find evidence of "enormous changes" in the Germanic peoples in the
> >thousand years between 1200 and 200 BC.
> >
> >Is that because people in New Zealand are upside-down?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> That they were all germans is a conclusion to which you have jumped.
I told you already that the term German had not been invented in
> >
> >Mr. Stevens googles for "European population movements first century bc"
> >to find evidence of "enormous changes" in the Germanic peoples in the
> >thousand years between 1200 and 200 BC.
> >
> >Is that because people in New Zealand are upside-down?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> That they were all germans is a conclusion to which you have jumped.
1200 BC, I use "Germanic people," however, to refer to the people who dwelt in the region under discussion, because that is Germany currently.
It's a distinction without difference to the point you made, anyway.
What ever you want to call them, you have not presented ANY evidence for
any important change in the tribal groups that inhabited that region in the
millennium under discussion, never mind "enormous."
You were faking it again and got caught.
How careless.
Eric Stevens
Aug 14, 2016, 6:57:59 PM8/14/16
to
On Sun, 14 Aug 2016 14:57:42 -0700 (PDT), Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net>
wrote:
>On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 5:03:52 PM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
>
>>
>> So in your world there are no natural causes of climate change and the
>> only manmade cause of climate change is CO2.
>
>A clumsy misrepresentation. I said very clearly that the natural causes
>we've seen associated with global warming in past warm periods are not
>present to justify the current global warming. It's called a clue.
You have previously written:
"Of course, the scientific consensus is that we know quite well why
those warm periods took place, and involved various factors like
solar activity, the earth's orbit and others.
orbit and NO others. This why I said "So in your world there are no
misrepresentation".
Unfortunately the physics of the situation means you can't have it
both ways. These "heating factors" either exist or they don't. The
record shows they existed in the past and you can't turn them off for
the present. Contrary to your stement above, in this world these
"heating factors" continue to exist as natural causes of climate
change.
>
>4. (Latest addition - climate/weather confusion) Mr. Stevens believes that
>> the Minoan Warm Period as revealed by ice-cores in Antarctica and
>> Greenland indicates that people in the Baltic area north of Berlin
>> could have gone naked outdoors comfortably in 1200 BC, in any season.
>
>Who said anything about them being comfortable?
>
>What warrior would not wrap up if he felt too uncomfortable in the cold to go fight naked?
Are you trying to beg the question?
to Rome. In truth Longus allowed his raw troops to be tempted to cross
the Trebia by fording before they had even had breakfast. There
Hannibals army waited in a carefully laid out ambush. As they say, the
rest is history.
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 5:03:52 PM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
>
>>
>> So in your world there are no natural causes of climate change and the
>> only manmade cause of climate change is CO2.
>
>A clumsy misrepresentation. I said very clearly that the natural causes
>we've seen associated with global warming in past warm periods are not
>present to justify the current global warming. It's called a clue.
"Of course, the scientific consensus is that we know quite well why
those warm periods took place, and involved various factors like
solar activity, the earth's orbit and others.
So heating factors led to warmer periods in the past.
The problem is that those heating factors are not present today."
So you have literally said there has been NO solar activity, NO eart's
The problem is that those heating factors are not present today."
orbit and NO others. This why I said "So in your world there are no
natural causes of climate change and the only manmade cause of climate
change is CO2." which you are now trying to say is a "Clumsy
misrepresentation".
Unfortunately the physics of the situation means you can't have it
both ways. These "heating factors" either exist or they don't. The
record shows they existed in the past and you can't turn them off for
the present. Contrary to your stement above, in this world these
"heating factors" continue to exist as natural causes of climate
change.
>
>4. (Latest addition - climate/weather confusion) Mr. Stevens believes that
>> the Minoan Warm Period as revealed by ice-cores in Antarctica and
>> Greenland indicates that people in the Baltic area north of Berlin
>> could have gone naked outdoors comfortably in 1200 BC, in any season.
>
>Who said anything about them being comfortable?
>
>What warrior would not wrap up if he felt too uncomfortable in the cold to go fight naked?
>
>Don't you know that cold enemy soldiers is one of the main reasons why
>Hannibal won his first large battle in Italy?
Huh. Thats the Longus version which wasn't accepted when he got back
>Don't you know that cold enemy soldiers is one of the main reasons why
>Hannibal won his first large battle in Italy?
to Rome. In truth Longus allowed his raw troops to be tempted to cross
the Trebia by fording before they had even had breakfast. There
Hannibals army waited in a carefully laid out ambush. As they say, the
rest is history.
>
>You are terribly ill-equipped for this discussion; you are comical.
Bye bye http://tinyurl.com/hxbmn3v
>You are terribly ill-equipped for this discussion; you are comical.
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
Aug 14, 2016, 7:02:42 PM8/14/16
to
On Sun, 14 Aug 2016 15:09:34 -0700 (PDT), Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net>
wrote:
Yep. And I stand by it. Assuming the battle was fought at about the
estimated date, it wasn't necessarily that cold."
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
wrote:
estimated date, it wasn't necessarily that cold."
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
Tiglath
Aug 14, 2016, 7:32:40 PM8/14/16
to
On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 6:57:59 PM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
>
> You have previously written:
>
> "Of course, the scientific consensus is that we know quite well why
> those warm periods took place, and involved various factors like
> solar activity, the earth's orbit and others.
>
> So heating factors led to warmer periods in the past.
>
> The problem is that those heating factors are not present today."
>
> So you have literally said there has been NO solar activity, NO eart's
> orbit and NO others.
How incompetent.
>
> You have previously written:
>
> "Of course, the scientific consensus is that we know quite well why
> those warm periods took place, and involved various factors like
> solar activity, the earth's orbit and others.
>
> So heating factors led to warmer periods in the past.
>
> The problem is that those heating factors are not present today."
>
> So you have literally said there has been NO solar activity, NO eart's
> orbit and NO others.
It clearly says that the heating factors not present were the the heating
factors that led to warmer periods.
Despite your malicious reading, the truth remains that those factors
are not present today and we are having a warm period.
You can't harm facts, janitor.
You must be fuming because today you've had a pretty bad streak.
I've caught you confusing Gauls with Germans.
I've caught your talking about enormous changes in Germanic tribes, you
cannot enumerate.
I've caught you confusing climate and weather.
And I exposed you one more time as a climate denier.
Sorry, pal, but people who try to pass raw sewage for information need to be
exposed, and God, are you exposed today.
Chamomile tea?
> >Don't you know that cold enemy soldiers is one of the main reasons why
> >Hannibal won his first large battle in Italy?
>
> Huh.
an empty stomach and find out how much soldiers like being uncomfortable
with cold before a fight. Therefore #4 applies to your nonsense.
<snip Roman history he just googled to keep on faking it>
Tiglath
Aug 14, 2016, 7:40:47 PM8/14/16
to
On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 7:02:42 PM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
> > Exhibit A
> >> >------
> >> >"Why do you mention that [Minoan Warm] period anyway?
> >> >What is the relevance to the Tollense Valley Battle?"
> >> >
> >> >"The question was whether or not it was so cold as to preclude those so
> >> >inclined from fighting naked. Assuming the battle was fought at about
> >> >the estimated date, it wasn't necessarily tghat cold."
> >> >------
> >
> >THAT IS CONFUSING CLIMATE WITH WEATHER.
> >
> >YOU WROTE THAT.
>
> Yep. And I stand by it.
That does not mean much considering the things you stand by already.
> > Exhibit A
> >> >------
> >> >"Why do you mention that [Minoan Warm] period anyway?
> >> >What is the relevance to the Tollense Valley Battle?"
> >> >
> >> >"The question was whether or not it was so cold as to preclude those so
> >> >inclined from fighting naked. Assuming the battle was fought at about
> >> >the estimated date, it wasn't necessarily tghat cold."
> >> >------
> >
> >THAT IS CONFUSING CLIMATE WITH WEATHER.
> >
> >YOU WROTE THAT.
>
> Yep. And I stand by it.
> Assuming the battle was fought at about the
> estimated date, it wasn't necessarily that cold."
>
temperature and time before hypothermia disables them, this should be
an easy question for you
How cold was it? A range will do, i.e., define, "it wasn't necessarily that cold."
Eric Stevens
Aug 14, 2016, 9:53:35 PM8/14/16
to
On Sun, 14 Aug 2016 16:32:39 -0700 (PDT), Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net>
wrote:
>On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 6:57:59 PM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
>
>>
>> You have previously written:
>>
>> "Of course, the scientific consensus is that we know quite well why
>> those warm periods took place, and involved various factors like
>> solar activity, the earth's orbit and others.
>>
>> So heating factors led to warmer periods in the past.
>>
>> The problem is that those heating factors are not present today."
>>
>> So you have literally said there has been NO solar activity, NO eart's
>> orbit and NO others.
>
>How incompetent.
>
>It clearly says that the heating factors not present were the the heating
>factors that led to warmer periods.
>
>Despite your malicious reading, the truth remains that those factors
>are not present today and we are having a warm period.
So you are confirming that you have said "there has been NO solar
activity, NO earth's orbit and NO others." What are you squawking
about when I have confirmed that this is my understanding?
climate.
Thats the Longus version which wasn't accepted when he got back
to Rome. In truth Longus allowed his raw troops to be tempted to cross
the Trebia by fording before they had even had breakfast. There
Hannibals army waited in a carefully laid out ambush. As they say, the
rest is history.
>
hard-cover copy of "Carthage Must Be Destroyed"
http://tinyurl.com/hob5ve5
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 6:57:59 PM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
>
>>
>> You have previously written:
>>
>> "Of course, the scientific consensus is that we know quite well why
>> those warm periods took place, and involved various factors like
>> solar activity, the earth's orbit and others.
>>
>> So heating factors led to warmer periods in the past.
>>
>> The problem is that those heating factors are not present today."
>>
>> So you have literally said there has been NO solar activity, NO eart's
>> orbit and NO others.
>
>How incompetent.
>
>It clearly says that the heating factors not present were the the heating
>factors that led to warmer periods.
>
>Despite your malicious reading, the truth remains that those factors
>are not present today and we are having a warm period.
activity, NO earth's orbit and NO others." What are you squawking
about when I have confirmed that this is my understanding?
>
>You can't harm facts, janitor.
>
>You must be fuming because today you've had a pretty bad streak.
>
>I've caught you confusing Gauls with Germans.
Nope. I never mentioned Gauls. I've told you once already.
>You can't harm facts, janitor.
>
>You must be fuming because today you've had a pretty bad streak.
>
>I've caught you confusing Gauls with Germans.
>
>I've caught your talking about enormous changes in Germanic tribes, you
>cannot enumerate.
>
>I've caught you confusing climate and weather.
You are confused, really confused. It was you who thought weather =
>I've caught your talking about enormous changes in Germanic tribes, you
>cannot enumerate.
>
>I've caught you confusing climate and weather.
climate.
>
>And I exposed you one more time as a climate denier.
>
>Sorry, pal, but people who try to pass raw sewage for information need to be
>exposed, and God, are you exposed today.
>
>Chamomile tea?
>
>
>
>
>
>> >Don't you know that cold enemy soldiers is one of the main reasons why
>> >Hannibal won his first large battle in Italy?
>>
>> Huh.
You snipped the rest of my reply, which was:
>And I exposed you one more time as a climate denier.
>
>Sorry, pal, but people who try to pass raw sewage for information need to be
>exposed, and God, are you exposed today.
>
>Chamomile tea?
>
>
>
>
>
>> >Don't you know that cold enemy soldiers is one of the main reasons why
>> >Hannibal won his first large battle in Italy?
>>
>> Huh.
Thats the Longus version which wasn't accepted when he got back
to Rome. In truth Longus allowed his raw troops to be tempted to cross
the Trebia by fording before they had even had breakfast. There
Hannibals army waited in a carefully laid out ambush. As they say, the
rest is history.
>
>Yes huh, moron, try crossing a river in north Italy in December with
>an empty stomach and find out how much soldiers like being uncomfortable
>with cold before a fight. Therefore #4 applies to your nonsense.
>
><snip Roman history he just googled to keep on faking it>
'Googled' be buggered. I went to my bookshelf and got out my
>an empty stomach and find out how much soldiers like being uncomfortable
>with cold before a fight. Therefore #4 applies to your nonsense.
>
><snip Roman history he just googled to keep on faking it>
hard-cover copy of "Carthage Must Be Destroyed"
http://tinyurl.com/hob5ve5
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
Aug 14, 2016, 10:01:12 PM8/14/16
to
On Sun, 14 Aug 2016 16:40:46 -0700 (PDT), Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net>
wrote:
I can't answer that question but here is a quote from "The Early
Germans" by Malcom Todd:
"Throughout several centuries of warfare against well armoured Roman
Armies, body armour was not worn by German fighting men. Roman
stone reliefs and figurines show German opponents fighting naked or
clad only in breeches or cloak."
Once again I only had to take it from my bookshelves and find the
right passage.
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
wrote:
Germans" by Malcom Todd:
"Throughout several centuries of warfare against well armoured Roman
Armies, body armour was not worn by German fighting men. Roman
stone reliefs and figurines show German opponents fighting naked or
clad only in breeches or cloak."
Once again I only had to take it from my bookshelves and find the
right passage.
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
Aug 14, 2016, 10:02:16 PM8/14/16
to
rOn Sun, 14 Aug 2016 15:14:27 -0700 (PDT), Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net>
wrote:
Do you have return ticket from cloud-cuckoo land?
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
wrote:
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
Aug 14, 2016, 10:03:21 PM8/14/16
to
On Sun, 14 Aug 2016 15:22:12 -0700 (PDT), Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net>
wrote:
Read a few books on the subject.
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
wrote:
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
Tiglath
Aug 15, 2016, 12:58:59 AM8/15/16
to
On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 9:53:35 PM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
> >
> >I've caught you confusing Gauls with Germans.
>
> Nope. I never mentioned Gauls. I've told you once already.
You mentioned the Gaesatae, Boii and the Insubres, they are GAULS,
> >
> >I've caught you confusing Gauls with Germans.
>
> Nope. I never mentioned Gauls. I've told you once already.
ignorant moron.
You are in a history forum, learn some before you post, at long last.
Go ahead tell me again you never mentioned Gauls, and show
everybody now denial is not a river in Egypt.
> >> >Don't you know that cold enemy soldiers is one of the main reasons why
> >> >Hannibal won his first large battle in Italy?
> >>
> >> Huh.
>
> You snipped the rest of my reply, which was:
>
regurgitate from Google, just to appear you know something you don't>
>
> 'Googled' be buggered. I went to my bookshelf and got out my
> hard-cover copy of "Carthage Must Be Destroyed"
It's not your day today, Mr. Stevens.
IF you have that book, which I doubt, turn to page 261. In the middle of the
page it reads:
"In 225 BC a large force of 50,000 infantry and 20,000 cavalry mainly made up
of two Gallic tribes, the Boii and the Insubres, had again marched down the Po
Valley and had advanced on Etruria."
Those are the Gauls you never mentioned, Mr. Stevens, only that you did, and
thought were Germans fighting naked, which you thought could cleverly port
to 1200 BC in the Tollense Valley.
Here are your words again:
------
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudity_in_combat
"Polybius' Histories describe how the Gaesatae, hired by other
Celtic peoples, the Boii and Insubres [...]
-------
early Roman history, it's hard not to encounter them in Polybius and Livy. And
were a constant problem for early Rome.
The Boii are also famous for having offered to guide Hannibal through the Alps,
according to Livy.
So much for
"Nope. I never mentioned Gauls. I've told you once already."
Tiglath
Aug 15, 2016, 1:04:15 AM8/15/16
to
On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 10:03:21 PM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
> >
> >What ever you want to call them, you have not presented ANY evidence for
> >any important change in the tribal groups that inhabited that region in the
> >millennium under discussion, never mind "enormous."
> >
> >You were faking it again and got caught.
> >
> >How careless.
> >
> Read a few books on the subject.
That phrase has been in you lips before when you are as naked of evidence as
> >
> >What ever you want to call them, you have not presented ANY evidence for
> >any important change in the tribal groups that inhabited that region in the
> >millennium under discussion, never mind "enormous."
> >
> >You were faking it again and got caught.
> >
> >How careless.
> >
> Read a few books on the subject.
a Gaul.
Since it was your claim, why don't you read those books first and when you find
evidence of the enormous changes you talk about, you let us know.
Until then you are WRONG!
Good boy.
> --
>
> Regards,
>
> Eric Stevens
Tiglath
Aug 15, 2016, 1:05:47 AM8/15/16
to
On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 10:02:16 PM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
> >> >Where is the history of the Germanic people from 1200 to 200 BC, revealing
> >> >enormous societal changes, you seem to know about?
> >> >
> >> One day someone will tell you about the science of archaeology,
> >
> >How would you know? You can't say anything on the subject you help yourself
> >when your own claims leave you holding your dick on center stage, as you
> >are now.
> >
> >AGAIN, folks, a man who is quick to ask for sources and evidence, comes short
> >of it, and won't have the grace to say, "I don't know."
> >
> >Readers know you don't know, anyway, big mouth.
>
> Do you have return ticket from cloud-cuckoo land?
Sassy Stevens can't hide ignorant Stevens.
> >> >Where is the history of the Germanic people from 1200 to 200 BC, revealing
> >> >enormous societal changes, you seem to know about?
> >> >
> >> One day someone will tell you about the science of archaeology,
> >
> >How would you know? You can't say anything on the subject you help yourself
> >when your own claims leave you holding your dick on center stage, as you
> >are now.
> >
> >AGAIN, folks, a man who is quick to ask for sources and evidence, comes short
> >of it, and won't have the grace to say, "I don't know."
> >
> >Readers know you don't know, anyway, big mouth.
>
> Do you have return ticket from cloud-cuckoo land?
Tiglath
Aug 15, 2016, 1:18:34 AM8/15/16
to
On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 10:01:12 PM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
> >
> >> Assuming the battle was fought at about the
> >> estimated date, it wasn't necessarily that cold."
> >>
> >
> >Since naked humans can function well only within a narrow range of
> >temperature and time before hypothermia disables them, this should be
> >an easy question for you
> >
> >How cold was it? A range will do, i.e., define, "it wasn't necessarily that cold."
>
> I can't answer that question
Why not, wasn't it during the Minoan Warm Period, according to yhou, and you have all sort of charts with temperatures for it? Wasssup?
> >
> >> Assuming the battle was fought at about the
> >> estimated date, it wasn't necessarily that cold."
> >>
> >
> >Since naked humans can function well only within a narrow range of
> >temperature and time before hypothermia disables them, this should be
> >an easy question for you
> >
> >How cold was it? A range will do, i.e., define, "it wasn't necessarily that cold."
>
> I can't answer that question
but here is a quote from "The Early
> Germans" by Malcom Todd:
>
> "Throughout several centuries of warfare against well armoured Roman
> Armies, body armour was not worn by German fighting men. Roman
> stone reliefs and figurines show German opponents fighting naked or
> clad only in breeches or cloak."
If you had read any Roman history, you would know that Romans had many battles with Germanic tribes in Italy and Northern Italy, where it is HOT.
Therefore, the Romans chose the hour of the battle to be the hottest time of the day, because the Germans were not used to the heat and collapsed with exhaustion. Armies avoided fighting in the winter, unless they had to.
It is therefore not surprising that boiling Germans tended to wear little in
times of strenuous exercise, which does not mean it was a German custom, or that they did so when fighting in their forest of Northern Europe where it was
not that hot even in the summer.
No book on your shelf can undo the fact that you confused Gauls for Germans.
Your damage control just digs you a deeper and wider hole, stop digging, for
your sake, continue digging, for mine.
Tiglath
Aug 15, 2016, 1:31:42 AM8/15/16
to
On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 9:53:35 PM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
> >
> >I've caught you confusing climate and weather.
>
> You are confused, really confused. It was you who thought weather =
> climate.
I have better ammo than you. Your own words.
> >
> >I've caught you confusing climate and weather.
>
> You are confused, really confused. It was you who thought weather =
> climate.
What is the difference between climate and weather? Time.
The Minoan Warm Period is a long period of 150 years of warm climate.
The duration of the Tollense Valley Battle was very much less and we call the
attending atmospheric conditions, weather.
Do you understand the difference?
To even think that the former is relevant to discern the later is retarded.
And that is exactly what you did and still stand by, with these words
Question:
"What is the relevance of the Minoan Warm Period [CLIMATE] to the Tollense Valley Battle?"
Mr. Stevens answer:
"The question was whether or not it was so cold as to preclude those so
the estimated date, it wasn't necessarily tghat [sic] cold [WEATHER]."
One of the clearest examples of climate/weather confusing to be seen.
By your hand.
So much for your climate change "expertise."
Eric Stevens
Aug 15, 2016, 5:13:01 AM8/15/16
to
On Sun, 14 Aug 2016 21:58:58 -0700 (PDT), Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net>
wrote:
>On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 9:53:35 PM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
>
>> >
>> >I've caught you confusing Gauls with Germans.
>>
>> Nope. I never mentioned Gauls. I've told you once already.
>
>You mentioned the Gaesatae, Boii and the Insubres, they are GAULS,
>ignorant moron.
Go back and read again. I never mentioned them either.
know I cited a real book (which I have owned for several years).
See below ...
a map of movements within the second Punic war.
have read.
>
>Go take a nap.
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 9:53:35 PM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
>
>> >
>> >I've caught you confusing Gauls with Germans.
>>
>> Nope. I never mentioned Gauls. I've told you once already.
>
>You mentioned the Gaesatae, Boii and the Insubres, they are GAULS,
>ignorant moron.
>
>You are in a history forum, learn some before you post, at long last.
>
>Go ahead tell me again you never mentioned Gauls, and show
>everybody now denial is not a river in Egypt.
Idiot.
>You are in a history forum, learn some before you post, at long last.
>
>Go ahead tell me again you never mentioned Gauls, and show
>everybody now denial is not a river in Egypt.
>
>> >> >Don't you know that cold enemy soldiers is one of the main reasons why
>> >> >Hannibal won his first large battle in Italy?
>> >>
>> >> Huh.
>>
>> You snipped the rest of my reply, which was:
>>
> <And I snip it again because no one here needs what your
> regurgitate from Google, just to appear you know something you don't>
But I didn't regurgitate it from Google. If you could read you would
>> >> >Don't you know that cold enemy soldiers is one of the main reasons why
>> >> >Hannibal won his first large battle in Italy?
>> >>
>> >> Huh.
>>
>> You snipped the rest of my reply, which was:
>>
> <And I snip it again because no one here needs what your
> regurgitate from Google, just to appear you know something you don't>
know I cited a real book (which I have owned for several years).
See below ...
>
>>
>> 'Googled' be buggered. I went to my bookshelf and got out my
>> hard-cover copy of "Carthage Must Be Destroyed"
>
>Oh please...
>
>It's not your day today, Mr. Stevens.
>
>IF you have that book, which I doubt, turn to page 261. In the middle of the
>page it reads:
>
>"In 225 BC a large force of 50,000 infantry and 20,000 cavalry mainly made up
>of two Gallic tribes, the Boii and the Insubres, had again marched down the Po
>Valley and had advanced on Etruria."
Hmm. You must have the later paper back. Page 261 in my hard cover is
>>
>> 'Googled' be buggered. I went to my bookshelf and got out my
>> hard-cover copy of "Carthage Must Be Destroyed"
>
>Oh please...
>
>It's not your day today, Mr. Stevens.
>
>IF you have that book, which I doubt, turn to page 261. In the middle of the
>page it reads:
>
>"In 225 BC a large force of 50,000 infantry and 20,000 cavalry mainly made up
>of two Gallic tribes, the Boii and the Insubres, had again marched down the Po
>Valley and had advanced on Etruria."
a map of movements within the second Punic war.
>
>Those are the Gauls you never mentioned, Mr. Stevens, only that you did, and
>thought were Germans fighting naked, which you thought could cleverly port
>to 1200 BC in the Tollense Valley.
Get your citations in order, *then* try and prove your point.
>Those are the Gauls you never mentioned, Mr. Stevens, only that you did, and
>thought were Germans fighting naked, which you thought could cleverly port
>to 1200 BC in the Tollense Valley.
>
>Here are your words again:
>
>------
>See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudity_in_combat
>
> "Polybius' Histories describe how the Gaesatae, hired by other
> Celtic peoples, the Boii and Insubres [...]
>-------
>
>Those tribes are not obscured Gaulish tribe, Mr. Stevens, they are all over
>early Roman history, it's hard not to encounter them in Polybius and Livy. And
>were a constant problem for early Rome.
>
>The Boii are also famous for having offered to guide Hannibal through the Alps,
>according to Livy.
>
>So much for
>
>"Nope. I never mentioned Gauls. I've told you once already."
How about citing something I've written, rather than something you
>Here are your words again:
>
>------
>See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudity_in_combat
>
> "Polybius' Histories describe how the Gaesatae, hired by other
> Celtic peoples, the Boii and Insubres [...]
>-------
>
>Those tribes are not obscured Gaulish tribe, Mr. Stevens, they are all over
>early Roman history, it's hard not to encounter them in Polybius and Livy. And
>were a constant problem for early Rome.
>
>The Boii are also famous for having offered to guide Hannibal through the Alps,
>according to Livy.
>
>So much for
>
>"Nope. I never mentioned Gauls. I've told you once already."
have read.
>
>Go take a nap.
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
Aug 15, 2016, 5:14:03 AM8/15/16
to
On Sun, 14 Aug 2016 22:31:41 -0700 (PDT), Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net>
wrote:
Idiot
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
wrote:
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages