New book: Arms and Armor from Iran

Mumtazb · 20th September 2006, 09:28 AM

Is the binding just a bit wiggly or has it actually pulled apart, as is the impression I got from your first post?

Either way I cannot imagine there are many faulty copies which have been sold.

The book is quality! The materials used are quality, the content, the pictures...and it actually presents a good year or 2 of reading for me, not that I'm a slow reader, just that I have little time on my hands these days.

I would recommend anybody who has an interest in Persian Arms and Armour to buy this book

Andrew · 20th September 2006, 03:04 PM

Hi Mumtaz. Great to see you here.

Mumtazb · 20th September 2006, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew

Hi Mumtaz. Great to see you here.

Thanks Andrew....good to be here!
I just saw the keris forum today so that's an added bonus to this site

Doug M · 20th September 2006, 05:03 PM

Hello,

I absolutely agree with Mumtazb: this book is of the highest quality with over eight years of research within it. Both the text and catalogue sections are excellent. The text is all academic, and there is an extensive bibliography for you, the interested party, to start your own research.

The same quality goes for the binding. What has been described as "weak binding" is certainly out of the ordinary. For my part, I have held the book vertically quite a bit, and the binding holds well. I suppose if the book is manipulated while held vertically, it could damage the spine, but that is the same for any large book. A book of this siaze, as suggested, is best enjoyed if it is placed horizontally on a flat surface. However, that has nothing to do with the quality of the book's content: it has plenty to do with common sense. Keep this in mind when looking at it.

If one is interested in Persian arms and armor, this is, quite seriously, the best book on the subject. And I would like to say something about "definitive" as it has been used. If one thinks of "definitive" as a static thing, a definition written in stone, then this book is not "definitive." But if one thinks of definitions as things that change, particularly in academics, then this text is "definitive" as a starting point. Manoucher will be the first to state this. Regardless of how one regards this book, it is a fantastic starting point for future research.

Sincerely,

Doug M

Andrew · 21st September 2006, 02:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug M

Hello,

I absolutely agree with Mumtazb: this book is of the highest quality with over eight years of research within it. Both the text and catalogue sections are excellent. The text is all academic, and there is an extensive bibliography for you, the interested party, to start your own research.

The same quality goes for the binding. What has been described as "weak binding" is certainly out of the ordinary. For my part, I have held the book vertically quite a bit, and the binding holds well. I suppose if the book is manipulated while held vertically, it could damage the spine, but that is the same for any large book. A book of this siaze, as suggested, is best enjoyed if it is placed horizontally on a flat surface. However, that has nothing to do with the quality of the book's content: it has plenty to do with common sense. Keep this in mind when looking at it.

If one is interested in Persian arms and armor, this is, quite seriously, the best book on the subject. And I would like to say something about "definitive" as it has been used. If one thinks of "definitive" as a static thing, a definition written in stone, then this book is not "definitive." But if one thinks of definitions as things that change, particularly in academics, then this text is "definitive" as a starting point. Manoucher will be the first to state this. Regardless of how one regards this book, it is a fantastic starting point for future research.

Sincerely,

Doug M

Hi Doug, good to see you here as well.

Didn't you and Mumtaz help edit the book? Personally, I'd love to hear more about that process and a "behind the scenes" perspective once I've had the chance to look it over. Did you edit only the text portion, or did you get the opportunity to participate in the photos and captions as well?

Best,
Andrew

Lee · 21st September 2006, 12:14 PM

Read for Kicks

Mark · 21st September 2006, 03:02 PM

Yeesh. It goes to show that if someone wants to be critical, they don't bother much with the details.

I am not trying to belittle Raymond Sauvage, but to tear down a work by English-speaking authors by referral to Norwegian-language articles, one of which was published after the book in question, is just ridiculous. Even more so as he wrote, when asked to help locate copies of the articles, that "I think you guys sholdn't put to much energy getting those two articles. One of them is obut the theory of reconstruction versus imitations, the other one is a description of the Norvegian-Rusian sword project." How can it be that the articles he uses in his critique are are ones people "souldn't put much energy into getting?" Then he characterizes the most up-to-date English work (six years old by then) as "out of date."

I guess I am being critical of Sauvage, but that kind of gratuitous, at-any-cost criticism just burns me up.

I am sure that anyone reading any of the works he cited could come up with equally severe, and equally weak, criticsim. It is highly unfair, and small-minded, IMO. And as an aside, I'm not aware that Sauvage has ever written a single word on the subject to contribute to the academic literature. Then again, most literary critics can't write (except a newspaper column) - that's why they are critics and not authors.

I'm a big fan of the philosophy that if you can't walk the walk, don't talk the talk.

As for Manoucherer, I don't think anyone is accusing him of being less than thorough and comprehensive. Still, it won't surprise me if some finds some fault to harp on. As we say in the legal business, "if the facts are against you, argue the law; if the law is against you, argue the facts; and if both are against you, just argue."

I must stop, as I am in grave danger of hijacking the thread.

20th September 2006, 09:28 AM	#1
Mumtazb Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 3	Is the binding just a bit wiggly or has it actually pulled apart, as is the impression I got from your first post? Either way I cannot imagine there are many faulty copies which have been sold. The book is quality! The materials used are quality, the content, the pictures...and it actually presents a good year or 2 of reading for me, not that I'm a slow reader, just that I have little time on my hands these days. I would recommend anybody who has an interest in Persian Arms and Armour to buy this book

20th September 2006, 03:04 PM	#2
Andrew Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: USA Posts: 1,725	Hi Mumtaz. Great to see you here.

20th September 2006, 05:03 PM	#4
Doug M Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 10	Hello, I absolutely agree with Mumtazb: this book is of the highest quality with over eight years of research within it. Both the text and catalogue sections are excellent. The text is all academic, and there is an extensive bibliography for you, the interested party, to start your own research. The same quality goes for the binding. What has been described as "weak binding" is certainly out of the ordinary. For my part, I have held the book vertically quite a bit, and the binding holds well. I suppose if the book is manipulated while held vertically, it could damage the spine, but that is the same for any large book. A book of this siaze, as suggested, is best enjoyed if it is placed horizontally on a flat surface. However, that has nothing to do with the quality of the book's content: it has plenty to do with common sense. Keep this in mind when looking at it. If one is interested in Persian arms and armor, this is, quite seriously, the best book on the subject. And I would like to say something about "definitive" as it has been used. If one thinks of "definitive" as a static thing, a definition written in stone, then this book is not "definitive." But if one thinks of definitions as things that change, particularly in academics, then this text is "definitive" as a starting point. Manoucher will be the first to state this. Regardless of how one regards this book, it is a fantastic starting point for future research. Sincerely, Doug M

21st September 2006, 12:14 PM	#6
Lee EAAF Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Upstate New York, USA Posts: 937	Read for Kicks

21st September 2006, 03:02 PM	#7
Mark Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 987	Yeesh. It goes to show that if someone wants to be critical, they don't bother much with the details. I am not trying to belittle Raymond Sauvage, but to tear down a work by English-speaking authors by referral to Norwegian-language articles, one of which was published after the book in question, is just ridiculous. Even more so as he wrote, when asked to help locate copies of the articles, that "I think you guys sholdn't put to much energy getting those two articles. One of them is obut the theory of reconstruction versus imitations, the other one is a description of the Norvegian-Rusian sword project." How can it be that the articles he uses in his critique are are ones people "souldn't put much energy into getting?" Then he characterizes the most up-to-date English work (six years old by then) as "out of date." I guess I am being critical of Sauvage, but that kind of gratuitous, at-any-cost criticism just burns me up. I am sure that anyone reading any of the works he cited could come up with equally severe, and equally weak, criticsim. It is highly unfair, and small-minded, IMO. And as an aside, I'm not aware that Sauvage has ever written a single word on the subject to contribute to the academic literature. Then again, most literary critics can't write (except a newspaper column) - that's why they are critics and not authors. I'm a big fan of the philosophy that if you can't walk the walk, don't talk the talk. As for Manoucherer, I don't think anyone is accusing him of being less than thorough and comprehensive. Still, it won't surprise me if some finds some fault to harp on. As we say in the legal business, "if the facts are against you, argue the law; if the law is against you, argue the facts; and if both are against you, just argue." I must stop, as I am in grave danger of hijacking the thread.