Uechi-Ryu.com

Discussion Area
It is currently Thu Oct 30, 2014 12:18 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Hi Wes
PostPosted: Sat Jul 21, 2007 10:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Nov 28, 1998 6:01 am
Posts: 2431
Location: MARSHFIELD, MA. USA
Thanks Wes:

I will check this out.

Any other thoughts on the matters?

I hope that you feel that your input is totally valued.

Did you see that the Japanese Prime Minister stated that the use of nuclear weapons was inevitable?

I think he got into hot water over that.

Certainly with the Army limited to 90 divisions for both theaters (never mind CBI) that with 250,000 troops perhaps still in the Phillipines, that the US may have "reached the bottom of its manpower barrel"

Do you think Truman would have not made the drops had more manpower and a more sanguine attitude had been available to him?

Is it not ironic that the war correspondent icon for the War, Ernie Pyle, was killed on Ite Jime?

It remains a small world I guess.

Jt

_________________
"All Enlightenment Gratefully Accepted"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 24, 2007 3:41 am 
John-

Thank you very much. I really like the site and the organization. When I joined I bought the back-issues of their newsletters and they have great stuff if you are a martial arts history nerd like me.... It's definitely worth checking out. I think you'd like it.

Quote:
Did you see that the Japanese Prime Minister stated that the use of nuclear weapons was inevitable?

I think he got into hot water over that.

Certainly with the Army limited to 90 divisions for both theaters (never mind CBI) that with 250,000 troops perhaps still in the Phillipines, that the US may have "reached the bottom of its manpower barrel"

Do you think Truman would have not made the drops had more manpower and a more sanguine attitude had been available to him?

Is it not ironic that the war correspondent icon for the War, Ernie Pyle, was killed on Ite Jime?

It remains a small world I guess.


I can't really offer much of an informed/useful opinion here. As far as martial history goes - my interest is pretty much dedicated to pre-gun times. I do have an abiding interest in the history of the Middle East - but that's more political than anything else.

Thanks again for the kind words. Take care.

-wes tasker


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Not A Problem
PostPosted: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Nov 28, 1998 6:01 am
Posts: 2431
Location: MARSHFIELD, MA. USA
I can't even remember Wes where I found the 90 division limitation.

Pre Gun Martial History is certainly welcome here.

I had two books by Stephen Turnbull: The Book of the Medieval Knight and The Samurai.

Now, this gut know what he is doing.

He maintains an ancestor of his, one John Turnbull, was the captured English Knight who issued a Challenge to The Bruce after Bannockburn.

The Bruce rode a smaller horse and liked to use the ax and the mace. I must find the description in the Bruce Trilogy.

Basicallly the Bruce acted to engage Turnbull directly, then at the last second turned away and also turned in the saddle and cracked the prisoner (freed to meet the Bruce) on the head with a mace and that, my friend, was that.

Scottish Light Cavalry was consistently underated by the English.

Braveheart was a great movie--but I wish Gibson had CGI available to re-create the Battles and the Various keeps.

After all if you are watching the Battle of Stirling Bridge---what do you first expect to see????

A bridge!!! Is that unreasonable? I guess I am picky, but I enjoyed Braveheart anyway, but the image of the Bruce given does not explain his actions in light of the fact that he was Scottish/Norman and held lands in England.

Bruce was a mighty fighter, perhaps one of the best in history.

I think Wallace would have looked more like John Hannah than Mel---but I was not in charge of casting.

Sir john Chandos, a veteran of the "Fight of the Thirty" in "France" was another great knight of the time. it is hard to tap into these details online or in a library. chandos was among the slain at the Burn of Bannock.

Longshank's Son (Edward Caernavon?) managed to escape.

At some later date his own folk, I think, imprisoned him and he was eventually killed by having molten metal poured into him.

Mithridates VI punished one enemy that way. Oh well, I could be wrong about that.

He had had to swear fealty to Edward to keep the "English" holdings--national identity was secondary, and, well, perhaps that is what got Wallace on the Warpath in the first place.

Howeevr, in the second place, the "Scotti" (Dalriad Scots/Irish?) invaded Scotland ( Caledonia) during the so called Dark Ages and gave the are its name after defeating the Picts the real detailed history of that lies lost to me, but perhaps partially reflected in "Tristan and Isolde" another good movie.
It is ironic that Gibby (Gib or Gilbert perhaps) was the Bruce's main man.

Mel is " Gib's son???

How odd no??

Well, I have heard, again, nothing but good things about you and I will post something on this fight on another thread so that it mayu actually get discussed.

Also, somewhere in my readings I note that there may have been at least four waves of assimilated invasions of Ireland in or prior to the dark ages. The first were the 'firlbog' and the last, I think, were the "Tuaatha dey Danaan". Irish legends are a bit lost to me.

_________________
"All Enlightenment Gratefully Accepted"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2007 9:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2000 6:01 am
Posts: 595
Location: Virginia
Actually, the Bruce used an axe to split his helmet and skull.

From Wikipedia:
"There now occurred one of the most memorable episodes in Scottish history. Sir Henry de Bohun, nephew of the Earl of Hereford, was riding ahead of his companions when he caught sight of the Scottish king himself. De Bohun lowered his lance and began a charge that carried him out of history and into legend.

King Robert was mounted on a small palfrey and armed only with a battle-axe.[7] He had no armor on. As de Bohun's great war-horse thundered towards him he stood his ground, watched with mounting anxiety by his own army. With the Englishman only feet away Bruce turned aside, stood in his stirrups and hit the knight so hard with his axe that he split his helmet and head in two. This small incident became in a larger sense a symbol of the war itself: the one side heavily armed but lacking agility; the other highly mobile and open to opportunity.

Rebuked by his commanders for the enormous risk he had taken, the King only expressed regret that he had broken the shaft of his axe."

I do not believe that de Bohun had been held a prisoner by the Scots. Perhaps your friend is thinking of Sir Thomas Gray who later wrote a history of the battle.

_________________
Trying to Walk in the Light, Hugh
1 John 1:5


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: The Trilogy
PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2007 10:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Nov 28, 1998 6:01 am
Posts: 2431
Location: MARSHFIELD, MA. USA
Turnbull claims that this fight beteen his namesake and the Bruce took place after many English Knight had been held for ransom for some time after Bannockburn.

The prisones put about that theyhad been tricked in and unknightly fasion and issued a challnge,

The Bruce fought many fight against English Knight in the manner you ppeport on.

John

_________________
"All Enlightenment Gratefully Accepted"


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group