[Doug M]

Originally Posted by Rivkin

First here we discuss the lecture, not the book.

Since the lecture and the person giving the lecture are closely related, discussion has turned from the information to the speaker and other people's feelings and opinions on the matter. That becomes problematic, particularly since the "conversation" easily can turn to ideology rather than information in the lecture alone.

While I disagree with Ariel's analysis of the gladius, I think he initially raised a valid point, which we are discussing here.

Of course, the discussion of whether a weapon can be used with the point of the edge is valid. One could argue that the shamshir was not used for thrusting, could have been used for thrusting, probably was used for thrusting, and was used for thrusting. The same goes for the niuweidao. But to make the case that a weapon was certainly used, equally, for both would be a mistake. Sure, a gladius could be used for cutting, but it appears that it has its emphasis on the thrust. The point that thrusting was emphasized in coordination with other men makes sense. And there is historical evidence to support that notion. Flippant dismissal of such evidence is not becoming of academic advancement in the field nor becoming of a serious student of weapon study.

Concerning students at MIT - I doubt they do bronze casting in their spare time,

Don't you think it is better to determine that with more certainty (by searching for a more direct answer) than just assuming an answer? How do you know none of the people at the lecture or who have watched teh lecture did not take that offer up?

however I found no reference in books on middle eastern bronze (starting with Gorelik) that persian one was something better than caucasian for example. May be it is, may be it is not, I am no specialist, I don't know.

Is this even a provable point? Maybe this should not be the focus.

Concerning Dr. Feuerbach - her review is her review and her beliefs are her beliefs. We have a separate thread to discuss it.

1) Her perspective is one of a learned position on the matter, and it should be taken more seriously than just as "her beliefs are her beliefs." Further inquuiry into why she says what she says could be very beneficial.
2) Seeing that she has replied to the thread, actually discussing issues there would be an excellent opportunity to talk with an expert. Yet emphasis is on discussing the author, not the work.

Anyway, this should not be about personal attacks (which my responses are not meant to be). My point is that if the information in the lecture is the focus, shouldn't that be the focus? That is all these posts have aimed at. That is it.