User talk:Oldwindybear/archive1

Per our email conversation, you have been unblocked. If there is anything I can do to help you learn how Wikipedia works, please don't hesitate to ask me. -- Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 07:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you most sincerely for your kindness, and I wish to say publicaly that I owe userkatefano an apology; doubting her impartiality and sincerity was wrong morally and I am truly sorry. I am going to take her advice, and I have someone (I cannot drive, alas!) taking me to the library tuesday to get the exact page numbers for precise cites on the controversial issues in the Hamer article. In the interim, since sources are cited, (but not closely enough, which will be rectified, believe me!) i intend to change the one of the article so that it reflects teh general state of knowledge, and cannot lay open anyone to unpleasantness. Again, thank you >Essjay and please know this time i intend to ASK QUESTIONS. Kate, I hope you will still mediate, and if so, once the Hamer article is completely recited to your satisfaction, we will move at last to Bonnie and Clyde. What I would like to do is write a drat, send it to you via wikipedia email and let you examine it prior to just posting. What do you think?old windy bear 07:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)oldwindybear[reply]

>Essjay ^{When I tried to go tone down the Hamer article, as Kate had noted, I was still blocked, Would you be kind enough to check that? Thanks! old windy bear 07:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)oldwindybear} [reply]

Checked it, seems to have been an autoblock. Let me know if you still have problems. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 10:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome! (We can't say that loud/big enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

• Be Bold!
• Don't let grumpy users scare you off.
• Meet other new users
• Learn from others
• Play nice with others
• Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
• Tell us about you

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page.

We're so glad you're here!

Oh, and this too! You deserve it for being so quick and willing to get back to good work after all the drama that went on. Good show, and congratulations! Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 16:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Helo Oldwindybear - I would also like to extend my welcome to you. Please let me know if there is ever anything I can help you with. Best, Johntex\^talk 17:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I humbly thank you for the welcome, and hope I can be a positive contributer...old windy bear 17:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to raise an RFC against user PIG, perhaps that would better. Please see the new comments I added on Katefan's RFC. An archive of this is on my user page if you chose to raise an RFC on PIG. --CyclePat 23:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi --CyclePat , I have apologized to Kate, and noted that on the RFC page -- do you mean I should file an RFC against Pig? I sort of was hoping he had gone away. He has not been back lately with his personal attacks, and I had hoped to just concentrate on contributing. Your advice is welcome?old windy bear 00:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Oldwindybear - I hope all is going well. I have noticed that you have experienced some difficulties with Wikipedia. I haven't taken the time to learn the whole history - but I do not Wikipedia can be a challenging place because it can seem like we have a lot of rules and processes. I don't want to get in the middle of everything, but I noticed you removed some on your comments from Katefan0's talk page. You may not be aware of this, but deleting comments from another User's page is generally considered to be bad form. If you want to take back something you said, you can put <s> in front of your original text, and </s> after your original text. Otherwise, it is best to let the User remove comments from their own talk page. I am restoring your text to her user page. Best, Johntex\^talk 00:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!>talk</thanks, and can I ask you to go look at the comments Pig left for me on the Battle of Tours? They are at teh bottom of the page. That kind of thing ought to be barred, thanks! Sorry about the comments on Kate's page, I thought they were inappropriate, my brother and I wanted to remove them, didn't know how to do it properly, sorry!old windy bear 00:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not entirely sure what a user-rfc would do to PIG, and what good it would bring? (maybe it will leave a record on his user page? dunno? I've never really done a rfc-user) But at the time, after analysing the situation, I felt that you where violated. I figured that a user RFC would bring you to the bottom of the issue... (the idea of inclusion of fictional material and historical documents vs. court case material.) (he did seemingly support you after all on your information). I Looked over the rules of

WP:RFC request for comment (user)). Anyway... You might want to check [1] next time this issue comme up. Or why not put it there right now, under the history section Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography!!! This a place to express a quick blurb on your concerns and request comment on the "Article content disputes," that seemingly, according to me, still exist. --CyclePat 01:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

--CyclePat pat, trust me, I am NOT going to do anything on anyone else's pages in the future. I did not understand all the rules, but I am getting them. I don't care about the user RFC, but do I have to have the kind of stuff he put on the bottom of the page on the talk page of the battle of tours there? That does seem to be wrong. Please advise me on how to deal with it - please note I learned already not to merely erase it! I just want to discuss facts, but this guy == well, the paragraph is virulant enough that it is best read to believe. old windy bear

Thank you for your comments. I just noticed the comments you left on my user page An archive. Generally you wouldn't edit a users page, but you where right that time! (plus you put it in the right spot... endorsements. Seemingly I think that's what you wanted to do, right?). No matter the case, I will look into Battle of Tours. (the thing that happens with wikipedia is that some people take it to seriously, some people do bad things, are not friendly and others that do care (like you and me) get into conflict. I've realized that it's hard to explain to people sometimes what you mean. (don't forget typing and talking are too different things). I could say something like: "the proper way to say apple is ...." (But because wiki is public and for the benefit of others... this may however be consider rude and embarrassing because you would be corrected in public!) (If we where talking in person I would politely correct you and we would be on with the conversation). Anyway, Il check Battle of Tours to see any discrepencies. If there are any problems I suggest you start by leaving a message on the user that is bothering you in question. Try and keep the discussion of user conduct on his or your user page discussions. (Don't forget to tell him you feel offended, and if you are unaware of the reasons, ask him? The common form (back from mentoring class):

• When you do <this>, it makes me feel <this>. I would appreciate your apology. Let's solve our differences with good
  NPOV. <sign> (Start with that... well see after)--CyclePat 02:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

)--CyclePat If I did anything to offend you, it would have been inadvertantly, I assure you, and i do apologize for anything you found offensive. I look forward to your help in my learning the ropes! Yes, I was endorsing! You have my unqualified apology, and take careold windy bear 05:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your to kind. I forgot about that a while ago. I was wondering what you where talking about at first. (It can't be the edit to the archive on my user page) Then I though about it. Oh! ya! The time I spent to make that page. Apology accepted. Anything to try and keep wikipedia free and loving. Thank you for the apology and don't worry. I would have probably done the same thing in my early editing. I'm sure you'll get to know who the honorable people are quite fast. Best wishes, and p.s.: don't let wikipedia get to much to you. (I actually am addicted to it, and it's not healthy to be in front of the computer all the time let alone stressing out for wiki stuff! One step at a time and don't let anyone change you into something you don't want to be!). by the way(b.t.w.):Welcome to Wiki! --CyclePat 05:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Dear OldWindyBear - thanks for the reply on my Talk page. I have looked into Talk:Battle of Tours and it is very clear that those comments made about you were extremely innapropriate. I have deleted them. It is unusual to delete comments from article pages, but doing so is permitted if there is something outrageous there, as there was in this case. Still, it is better that the deletion be done by an outside party, such as myself. Note also, that the comments are still there in the history of the article - practically speaking, nothing ever actually deleted on Wikipedia. Things are just removed from the current version of the page. I also researched the history of the Talk page to see who left the comments. The comments were left by an anonymous user. I have blocked that user from editing Wikipedia for 24 hours. Normally, we would issue several warnings first, but in this case I deemed the case to be clear-cut enough for an immediate block because (1) The anonymous account had made no positive contributions to Wikipedia in the past and (2) The attack was quite severe. Best, Johntex\^talk 03:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John, may i humbly thank you for deleting those comments? I know I have made mistakes with my efforts here -- but for instance, if you look at the compliment the article on the Battle of Tours just got, I wrote much of that article and felt enormous joy at having been a part of something positive. I am determined to follow the rules, and that is why I came to the administrators, and asked them to act. I am proud of my service, and I am proud I went to school -- i was the first one in my family to go to college! Anyway, I am learning. You will NOT find me doing things I should not. You will find me trying hard to contribute. Thank you for deleting those comments. I won't lie - I had to wonder why someone would hate me so badly who did not know me. Anyway, your earlier advice, I hope you noticed, was followed. i did NOT delete or touch comments someone else wrote. I will learn the rules! Thanks again. old windy bear

Bear, I was just heading over there to take a look myself, but I see my good friend Johntex has beaten me to it. Don't fret, and keep up the good work. BTW, what I'm going to do this evening is archive my talk page, so don't worry about those comments. Bygones. Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 03:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

>mrp</ Kate, I am truly sorry for those comments. You were trying to be fair, and I was wrong. I don't like to use health as an excuse, but some days are hard, and I tend to get cranky. Also, i really did not understand the rules - I think I am beginning to, I am trying! I wanted those things removed or archieved because you deserve better, and I am honestly sorry. Thank you also for heading over to look at Pig's latest. Why would he say such things? I was so proud of that article, because if you look at the history, I really did do a great deal of the research on it -- and others too, and we worked together and developed a really first rate article, fair to everyone. Welll, anyway, bygones, and thanks. You are a nice person. Did you get a chance to look at the frank hamer article? I rewrote most of it, eliminating inflamatory language, trying to cite controversial issues, and more cites are coming this week. I am really trying to contribute positively. Thanks again. old windy bear 03:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<after edit conflict with both OldWindybear AND Katefan0 - geez, it took me a long time to write this, I guess>Thanks Oldwindybear - you are very welcome. I am certain you are trying hard to do the right thing. We have so many policies (which should be strictly followed), guidelines (which should usually be followed), and conventions (which people will get mad at you if you don't follow) that I know it is tough to learn the ropes. Fortunately, most of our policies and guidelines are good ones, overall. Even though it is hard to do sometimes, two of our best policies are

Dispute Resolution Process. Coming to an individual like Kate or myself is always fine, but we are volunteers here just like you. We just happen to have received a vote of trust by the community to get a few extra tools. Therefore, none of us are online all the time, nor are we "responsible" for fixing each and every problem here. Going through the dispute resolution process step-by-step is the best way to ensure you are doing the right thing in any conflict. Best, Johntex\^talk 03:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Johntex thanks again John and yes, I am trying to do the right thing. Yes also that I need to read the rules, and use the guidelines in situations which arise. Thanks for the guidance. Kate is good people, and I am truly sorry I ever argued with her. Well, old men are not immune from mistakes! I will try harder. Thanks for the guidance, and I will study the rules more than I have. Take care, and have a good evening. old windy bear 03:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject is currently holding elections for project coordinators. Any member of the project may nominate themselves and all are encouraged to vote here. The elections will run until February 5.

--

]

You're quite welcome! I think that someone of your knowledge and experience is a great asset to the project (as you've probably discovered, most of us are not formally students of history); obviously, I hope that you'll stick around regardless of what the election results may be. —Kirill Lokshin 03:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

>]]hin Kirill, I don't expect to win as your assistant, but originally had hoped to contribute to the project in some capacity. I think though they are going in a dirction different than where I am going, so I am probably more useful doing what I am doing -- trying to help where asked in non-military history, (except for the Carolinians, I wrote a book on that dynasty though I never could get it published!) Kirill, I don't think they want a historian, especially a military historian, which is okay, this is a democracy. I do appreciate your kind thought. I will go on to work on some other projects -- i think the whole Mongol Empire series needs to be rewritten, for instance, and leave the military history project for those who are elected. But thank you for thinking of meold windy bear 05:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

>]]hin Kirill! I don't know if you are following the current revisions on the Battle of Tours, but the tag has been removed, and Palm dogg and myself reworked the conclusions to better fit wikipedia's format, and address concerns of a user who felt the conclusions were correct, but inappropriately worded for an encyclopedia. He was right. I did the rewrite, then Palmdogg, who is quite good, split the conclusion ("After Tours") into sections, making it a great deal easier for people to see how the perception of the battle has evolved through the centuries and through the cultural matrix. Kirill, the article is almost ready for consideration as a model article. ALMOST, and I will get it finished shortly. Kirill, I was going to start from scratch with basically rewriting the whole series on the Mongol Empire, prior to the Military Coordinators election, (there are a list of issues with the current articles a mile long, which I can send you later if you wish, along with some source listings, and general thoughts -- we really, for instance, ignore the incredible impact of the two lengthy female regencies over the largest continuous land empire in history! And there is little information -- other than what I have added, on the fact that the ONLY reason Europe did not crumble under the Mongol lash is simply internal politics; Batu Khan loathed Ogedei's son, and his mother, and the feeling was mutual -- that dispute, which lingered until Mongke Khan became Great Khan, kept Batu from unleashing his army on Europe -- he had to keep it posted east, to protect him from his cousins!), but that really falls into the province of yourself and your assistants once the election is over. I also have notes I have made on edits I was starting on the Islamic wars of expansion, the Byzantine Empire, and the Carolingian Empire, if the coordinator responsible for that area is interested at all? I did greatly appreciate your vote -- I guess I have not been around long enough. I am probably going to shift to the culture wars, movies, music, and the arts, once Tours and Frank Hamer are completed. ANYWAY, i did not want to start any major projects in the Military history arena until after the election, and then, if you want my materials, I would be delighted to send them to you. Kirill, you are going to do a GREAT job. You are an amazingly gifted historian, especially for someone self taught! (though as Essjay told me once, too much is made of degrees!) You also get along well with other people. ANYWAY, again, i wanted to offer this material, if the assistant or yourself is interested once the elections are complete...old windy bear 04:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noted your involvement with Battle of Tours and was curious about whether you have any interest in English history vis a vis the monarchy. I've just gotten ahold of a few interesting books on Henry VII/VIII and related royalty, and am currently trying to improve Margaret Tudor, which could be a much better article than it is currently. If you have any interest, pop on by. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 20:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC

Katefan0<Hi Kate! YES, I have considerable interest in english history - I am a big fan of Henry II and his mad sons, including of course Richard Lion Heart, (you have to admire a guy who spends less than a year of his reign in the country, doesn't speak the language, yet last year was voted by the British public as the second greatest monarch of history!) I will pop on by, and after some research, give it a go. I am finishing the 4th book I have read on Frank Hamer and Bonnie and Clyde, and will add a book on Margaret Tudor to the library list for tomorrow. (tuesdays is the day my family takes me to the Library of Congress for research!) Thank you for thinking about me, and yes, I will be delighted to help. Did you like the work at the Battle of Tours? I am really proud of that article. I resourced it like crazy also! (I read arabic, so it was a little easier than some!) Anyway, yes, I am delighted to help, thank you for thinking about me, see you on that site! old windy bear 20:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Katefan0<Hi Kate! Went and looked, it does need work, i am starting with the internet sources available, while I wait to go to the Library of Congress, (like http://englishhistory.net/tudor.html) Thanks again, I will certainly do my best to help, and I am delighted and honored you asked me. Did you see I volunteered for the Military History Project? I really do want to help, and again, thank you so much for asking me! old windy bear 20:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You bet, glad for your help. My biggest objection with articles like this is that they're defined by their marriages. Of course in reality that was what often defined women in that age -- but there is more leeway for royalty, and I think a better biographical encyclopedia article can be created about someone like her that is actually ABOUT her, not just a laundry list of marriages. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 20:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Katefan0^{[[User talk:Katefan0|(Hi Kate, I agree absolutely. When what I remember about her, she was a major player for a time in royal politics, and that needs to be emphasized rather than "she married x, and her progeny were y and z." That kind of article really objectifies women, in my opinion, and minimalizes them. I will tell you another place we need to address that -- the Mongol Empire. Twice, as I remember, women ruled for at least 3-5 years until enough Princes of the Blood could be gathered from the far corners of the Empire to elect a Great Khan. Yet we have little information on these reigns, which were EVERY BIT AS IMPORTANT AS THE KHAN'S REIGN! Anyway, I am at work on it, and will concentrate on her involvement with the royal politics of the day, which again, I believe remembering she was a MAJOR player in -- but which the current article does not reflect! THANKS for thinking of me, and letting me help! old windy bear 20:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)} [reply]

Congradulations Oldwindybear, I'm impressed to see you are making your way into a star wikipedian. Keep up the good work. --CyclePat 00:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CyclePat What a nice thing to say! Thank you! Before i "found wikipedia" I was finishing another degree on a scholarship, and reading history, which I have done all my life. And that was it. You, Kate, JohnTex, Kirill, Essjay, have really reached out to me, and encouraged me to use my brain -- which believe it or not remains fairly useful, despite the rest of my health not being so hot! -- and given me a purpose; to help make this the best site I can. THANK YOU for the kind words. I am truly trying. old windy bear 01:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Palm dogg sorry it took so long, the book was late -- here is a good list of the battles of Charles Martel -- if you would put them in a battle box in the Charles Martel article, or the Battle of Tours, whichever you feel most appropriate! The Charlamagne list is coming, and thank you greatly for working with me. THE BATTLES OF CHARLES MARTEL:

Battle of Cologne Battle of Amblève Battle of Vincy, Battle of Tours Battle of Avignon, Battle of Nîmes, Battle of Montfrin battle of the River Berre Battle of Narbonne.

Thanks again for working with me! old windy bear 04:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Finished. Here's a link to the Charles Martel campaignbox. Palm_Dogg 12:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Palm_Dogg Excellent job! I will have Charlamagne's to you within a couple of days. You are the MAN on Campaignboxs! I will tell you two other truly great generals who need them = Belisarius, and Subutai, when you get a chance take a look. If I get the battles, will you do the boxes for them too? old windy bear 13:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure. Belisarius and Subutai are pretty awesome commanders, so I'll definitely do boxes for them. Whenever you're ready, just put them on my Talk Page. I put the Martel campaignbox on his page, as well as a personal infobox. Regarding the Military Wikiproject, this is really more of a hobby for me while I'm between jobs, so I tend to just do pages on articles I'm interested in. I may actually switch back to movies soon; I'm working on a page for one of my favorite films by Akira Kurosawa, Ran (film), plus I still have to work on Starship Troopers. Palm_Dogg 16:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Palm_DoggThanks, you are a pleasure to work with. Movies are a hobby of mine too! I just got an original copy (okay, orginal print on dvd) of Akira Kurosawa's treasure, Seven Samurii. Starship Troopers I hated. Where to begin? He admitted he did not read the book! They turn the real poltiical issues into jokes, no battle armour, the bugs are totally misrepresented -- I hated it. Made a mockery out of what was and is a great book that asks some pretty intense questions -- should the franchise be totally without civil duty? Why do men fight? Why should they fight? Oh well, thanks again, and I will get you the info on Charlamagne first, then Belisarius, then Subutai. You and I work well together, and I thank you!old windy bear 16:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I should have clarified: just the book Starship Troopers (the movie did suck). If you know of any outside literature that discusses it, I'd really appreciate it. Palm_Dogg 16:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Palm_DoggI will try to find it. I took a class in contemporary american literature in college, and Starship Troopers, the novel, was specifically discussed. I did my paper for that course on Starship Troopers! It was of course 30 years ago, but believe it or not, some of my college notebooks are at my sisters. (they were at my Mom's till she died last year) I did a 25 page paper on Starship Troopers. i cannot drive any distance anymore, but my wife promises to take me over next weekend. I am pretty sure that paper is in those notebooks, and they contained a huge numbers of references in the late 60's and early and mid 70's as the novel was very controversial then, as you know. The references would be old, but I think would be intersting to you -- the book was a hugely divisive one in collge in the 70's. In addition, I just read an article recently on it, and will try to remember where! I would have liked to have worked on the military history coordinators project, but I (like Al Gore!) just don't have the votes. Oh well, I enjoy working with you, and I can still freelance. Did you see the debate -- I was in the midst of it -- on Podkayne of Mars? Edits on that were controversial. Oh well, I promise, I will find the stuff on Starship Troopers for you.old windy bear 16:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Awesome! Thanks! Palm_Dogg 20:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Palm_DoggMy pleasure -- I have really been trying to get the Battle of Tours issue resolved. No one really disagrees with the majority opinion, but one user wanted it worded differently. he was right in that it was confusing - and you took GREAT care of that problem. As to the paper, I will be curious what you think of my writing now compared to when I was 28! I do think it will help. I remember that paper very well, beacuse I was writing for the University newspaper, and an article got written on my presentation of it - you know, back the, there was a very strong school of thought that Heinlein was presenting a pro-facist Neo-Nazi form of government in Starship Troopers. I argued, and successfully, I proudly add, that was simplistic and wrong. NONE of the elements of the third reich were there, the camps, the political arrests -- I argued that Heinlein was arguing that the franchise should NOT be free, that civic responsibility and duty should go hand in hand with the franchise. I am not so sure he was not way ahead of his time, and absolutely right. At any rate, I gave a very heavily sourced paper arguing that, among other things. It will be my pleasure to go get it for you, and thanks again for all your help! old windy bear 21:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

]

• Sure, I can do that, although it might make more sense to start out with "Battles of the Seljuk Turks" and then gradually make new campaignboxes as articles on Arslan's battles come up. I'm actually not working on those other two articles. User:Wendell asked me to take a look at them (I keep a list of articles I'm actively editing on my main page under "Projects"). Thanks for the mailing offer, but I'd probably lose them. If you've got all your original citations, just put them on the Starship Troopers page or the User:Palm dogg/Starship Troopers page I'm using for major edits. Either way, I'll figure out how to integrate them into the article. Palm_Dogg 00:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you are right -- he was the second great Sultan of the Seljuks, and we ought to start with the formation of the dynasty, and work to him. I will put together a page of projects once Tours is okayed. (that is an excellent idea, thanks!)I will start on that as soon as I get Kate's sign off on the Tours adjustments - you were a huge help on that, greatly appreciated! The Roman Empire, from Augustus to the Holy Roman Empire, via the Bzyantines, are my primary field of expertise, though I am pretty well read for an american (since I read Arabic and Greek) in the history of Islam. I will copy the citations next saturday night, and put them on the the User:Palm dogg/Starship Troopers page. Do you have any interest in my conclusions and the reasoning behind them? If so, I can shorten that part to a page or so. I literally worked an entire semester on that paper and thought it was the best I ever wrote. (and I have faith you can do better!) Thanks again for the help, and Charlamagne should be ready Wednesday. I really would have liked to have worked on the military history project, but the votes just are not there. Oh well, I will continue to freelance. Take care, and have a good week, and the citations will be posted as noted next saturday night. You are a good person, and it is a pleasure to work with you.old windy bear 02:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to do whatever you'd like with the article, as well as the Mongol series; your expertise would be very welcome ;-)

More generally: in my experience, it's almost impossible to assign tasks to people here, so most things are done on a volunteer basis. If nobody feels like doing it, we have no real way of getting it done, unfortunately. —Kirill Lokshin 02:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill LokHi Kirill! I will do the San Jacinto Article as soon as I finish the Battle of Tours article in toto; it is very close to being complete, and a very good article, I am proud to say. The Frank Hamer article is also winding it's way to completion with Kate's help, bless her heart. The Mongol Empire I would be reluctant to undertake until after the Military Coordinator's election is finished, and things up and running there, becuse it might well conflict -- most of that empire's history can literally be linked and almost defined by it's battles! -- with the new assistant coordinator's ideas. I had sort of figured after those elections to slip over into biographies, and (please don't laugh) literature. I prefer military history, especially the Roman Empire, Carolingian and Holy Roman Empires, the Mongols, and the period of Arab expansion. (other than the Mongol explosion onto the world stage, the period of Arab expansion is unmatched for empire building that lasted -- as you know, Alexander the Great built an empire second only to Ghenghis Khan's in size -- but with his death, it fell apart! And Kirill, reading the Arab histories in Arabic is REALLY fascinating, because it really does not accurately translate to English -- some of the concepts are so alien to our culture and mindset that translation is virtually impossible to do with great accuracy! The Arab word for "honor" for instance, carries a whole plethoria of obligations and values in that one word!) But after the elections I think I will go to literature, and biographies. (I don't see any support for my ideas in the Military coordinator's election, which is okay -- this is an election, and my ideas did not ring with the voters!) Kate had me look at Margaret Tudor's article the other night, and after doing some research on that period and the Tudors and Stuarts, I was able, I think, to add to that article substantially. I hope to do the same with others, and with articles on great books. I wish I could have helped you with the military project, but the way that is set up, it really is for the assistants to fill that role. I would have enjoyed working for you though, you are a genuinely nice person -- a rarity in today's world, I am sorry to say! Thanks again, and I will do San Jacinto, probably next week! Take care, and you will do very well with the Military project.old windy bear 02:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - Ive noticed youve been making a lot of good edits lately and obviously have a lot of knowledge to draw from. Ive noticed many of the edits are one-liners in the lead paragraphs. I was hopeing you might consider expanding the ideas, with a section or paragraph, in the body of the article - per the MoS, the lead paragraph is supposed to be a summary of the article, and should not contain trivia or "unique" information, but be a high-level overview of the contents of the article, in effect repeating whats allready in the article summary style. That way readers get a over-view up front, if they want to read more they can drill down for more details in the article. Just a suggestion and thought to help improve overall article quality and content. --Stbalbach 15:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stbalbach Hello! Thank you for the compliment on the knowledge statment, and on the quality of the edits. I had been hitting a lot of the lead paragraphs on the theory that they could draw the reader in, into articles I think are meaningful. But you are right, I need to expand on the idea or topic, and in each case, i can do so. I will begin on that today. I appreciate your pointing that out to me -- because you are absolutely right, putting a unique idea or theme in the lead paragraph and not following it up can be confusing. THANKS, and I will correct it! Your thoughts are good ones, and will definately improve the overall article quality. I appreciate your help! old windy bear 16:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok great I just wanted to encourage expanding articles, which most need a lot of work, usually the lead section should be the last thing worked out, after the article is in good shape, the lead section summary writes its self pretty easily. But I understand where your coming from to make somthing more interesting. --Stbalbach 03:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stbalbach I think you are absolutely right on expanding the articles, and two i went back and did so tonight were the edits I had made on Caliph, and Mehmed the Conquerer. I thought your point was a good one, and I went into some depth on the points I had made -- and I thougth the expansion in both cases stegthened the articles, (and I am not done!) I welcome all the help I can get in good suggestions like yours to make my edits and articles better. Thanks! old windy bear 04:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OWB, hope you won't mind -- I ending up making some major revisions. I consulted both the New Yorker article and a recent book on Islamic history. I removed some of the material you added, because it was anecdotal and came from older, popular books. I think recent academic references are better. This removes some of the color, but I think that enough remains to show that the rape of the city was an atrocity.

We could add the anecdotes again, if we could find the original Islamic sources, or better current sources, and if it was made clear that these were possibly legends rather than something that actually happened. Zora 08:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zora HI Zora, I understand the reasons for the edits. I did add more material, which was VERY carefully sourced, and will add more of the antedotes as I can source them more than with one work. (actually, before I add anything antecdotal, I will run it by you first) If you will notice, I used the Muslim historian Wassaf for much of my new material, and have sent for more. i read Arabic, so will be looking for Islamic sources, not western, before restoring anything else. I do think that readers need to know the extent of the destruction to the country as a whole -- there is no question the Mongol destruction of the canal and irrigation system turned the country into a desert overnight! Hopefully you will like the additions, becasue again, my intention is only to show the horrific extent of what Hulagu did, and it far exceded the normal Mongol sack -- remember that in the end, the city did surrender. The mongols did not have to take it entirely by force, which in the normal course of things, would call for some pillage and rape, but not entire destruction. Hulagu Khan hated the Caliph, probably because he was a symbol of a power greater than the Khans, and his feelings dictated his actions. By the way though, the material from The Mongol Warlords was published in 1998, so it is fairly modern! But I think you are right, we need Islamic sources, and I will get them.old windy bear 15:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zora Hey Zora, we both found Ian Frazier's article -- he estimates the casalties as between 200,000 and 1 million, Wassaf said "hundreds of thousands," and Nowich estimated 800,000.old windy bear 19:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Historical numbers are often impressionistic. We have bureacracies that count things, and can say to the soldier how many U.S. Marines there are in a specific division. Older accounts are more on the order of ... "as far as the eye could see! There must have been 100,000 of them!" It's the same sort of problem that turns up when people give crowd estimates for demonstrations. The organizers say 100,000! and the police say 10,000! Sicker is a recent source, an academic source, and I trust him MORE than older, popularized histories.

The best way to handle this would be a list of estimates, referenced, with the date of the estimate, and whether secondary or primary source, added.

As for the irrigation -- again, instead of sparring over what's true, we need to get cites from various authorities, so that readers can see that that there's a dispute. That would be the fairest way.

I'll do what I can, but I'm over-committed at the moment. Not just Wikipedia, but Distributed Proofreaders, my Zen group, and my local Linux group. But let's see if we can put our disagreements IN the article. Zora 04:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zora Okay, sounds good to me -- I will start putting together sources that attribute the destruction of the irrigation system solely to the Mongols, and estimates of the death toll when the great sack occurred, and we can compare the source notes.

Sicker is a fairly modern source, but he is a western source, not an Islamic one, and we also need the muslim records, those which remain -- up till the great sack, the Caliphate had bureacracies which counted, as did the Roman Empire -- arguably the best sourcing. To this day, among historians, you know as I do that the best sourced work of all time remains the original "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" by Gibbons, because of his exhaustive sourcing, and I mean exhaustive, he took his entire life to travel and read old records in the original Latin or Greek, and to this day, is acknowedged as #1 in sourcing, due to his exhaustive use fo the records of the Roman bureacracies - for instance, for his citation on the size fo the Roman army at Manzikert, he literally went and found the records from that age, authorizing the particular units, their size, etc. Incredible! Sicker is okay - I have read him too, but he is not as good as Norwich, the recognized authority on the Bzyantine Empire, for instance, on original sourcing.

you are absolutely right on the impressionist problem with numbers. That is why I hesitate to attach real numbers to Carolingian armies -- even with Charlamagne, who was devoted to recreating an empire with records, they are not reliable. Most historians agree that for instance, the old Roman records are accurate -- witness again Gibbons getting the original manifests for the troop payments in Greek from Constandinople, for the army the Eastern Empire fielded at Manzikert! But lets face it, most modern historians are simply not going to go to that kind fo effort!

you are a better writer than I am, so I will gather a list of estimates and their sources, as to causalties when Hulagu Khan attacked Bagdad, and forward them to you so you can organize them as you see fit when you have time;

ditto for the irrigation system controversy; i will gather original sourcing, including Sicker, Norwich, Gibbons, -- and a number of more modern ones, like Nicolles, who only started publishing in England (he's british!) in 1990, with his last work published in 1998! Also, since this has become a very big environmental issue -- look what happens if type thing - I can look for references in the environmental science area.

Again, I want to help, not be a pain, so I will gather the materials, send them to you, and let you organize them however you want. You are an excellant writer, (not that I am bad, but your article formatting was better than mine!). If I can help on anything else, just let me know. I am a disabled vet, and have plenty of time, lol. My goal was never to "spar" with you, but help where I could in making it a great article. You do good work, and I would be delighted to help gather information via sourcing anywhere else if you let me know where and what. old windy bear 13:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing work! It looks to be quickly developing into a very good article.

We do, incidentally, have a recommended structure for battle articles (see the "Article structure" section of the project page); obviously, some deviation from this is to be expected, particularly in larger and better-developed articles, but I think it makes for a good starting point. The obvious problem is not a lack of design but a lack of workforce; our worklist (which has only recently been created) shows quite clearly our overall weakness.

Speaking of the worklist, incidentally, we're somewhat short on Roman and medieval battles. Since you're a historian, perhaps you could provide some advice as to which ones are more "important" to work on? —Kirill Lokshin 01:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill LokThank you very much for the kind words on the article on Ain Jalut -- I am sorry I did not know we had a recommended structure for battle articles -- but I do now and will adhere to it in finishing up Ain Jalut. The article is beginning to take shape -- and Kirill, it demonstrates, I hope, what I had wanted to do if I had able to be your assistant. Show why the battle happened, what led to it, what was happening historically, then the battle itself, then the aftermath -- with some reverberating through the centuries, literally! I wish I had made the assistant position -simply because I really do believe I could have helped you. The Roman list will be HUGE because of the time frame we are talking about. The Republic had 200 years of significant warfare (including Hannibal and the Carthigian struggles) 450 years of empire in the west, and 1100 more in the East. Nonetheless, as a military historian, these are the 10 most critical -- in my opinion, and I can back it up with Gibbons, Norwich, et al -- Roman battles, defining "Roman" as republic, united empire, and separate empires, west, and then East alone:

• 1) Scipio Africanus in 204 BC forced Hannibal to return to Carthage, where Scipio defeated him at Zama (202 BC)- this defeat assured the ascendency of Rome as the paramount power in the centuries to come, and marked the onset of the end for Carthage as an independant power.
• 2) Spartacus was killed in the battle of the river Silarus, putting down a slave rebellion which required the entire might of the empire to put it down, and caused the creation of the first Triumvirate. Pompey aligned himself with Julius Caesar and Marcus Crassus in the First Triumvirate in 70 B.C. -- this political alignment finished what Sulla had started, effectively ending the Roman Republic, and setting the stage for the Empire, though trappings of a republic existed till Augustus became the first emperor after the era of the Second Triumvirate and subsequent wars.
• 3) Battle of the Teutoburg Forest (A.D. 9), an alliance of Germanic tribes led by Arminius ambushed and wiped out three Legions of unsuspecting Roman allies. The battle established the Rhine as the boundary of the Roman Empire for the next few hundred years, until the decline of the Roman influence in the West. The defeat was so traumatic for Augustus he ceased wars of expansion -- and set in motion inevitable problems for the Empire beyond the Rhine.
• 4) Battle of Milvian Bridge, October 28, 312. Though Constantine the Great was not baptized until he was on his deathbed, his conversion, according to official Christian sources, was the immediate result of an omen before his victory in the battle. This battle, and the aftermath, made christinity the official religion of the Roman Empire and assured the establishment of the christian faith as a world force.
• 5) The sack of Rome by Alaric on August 24, 410, Alaric and his Visigoths burst in by the Salarian gate on the northeast of the city. She who had been mistress of the world now lay at the feet of foreign enemies. Ironically, savaging Rome had never been Alaric's ambition. He saw the greatness of the civilization of the Empire, and a place in it for his people. If they had given him that, history would have been at temporarily different. (whether an infusion of new blood would have reversed the decline is highly unlikely, but it might have delayed it as much as another century!) This really was the day the Roman Empire of the West died.
• 6) The Battle of Chalons - Aetius assured his place in history by defeating Attilia the Hun in the only defeat the Scourge of God ever suffered, and though our article disagrees -- and I have not edited it --Gibbons, Creasy, all the great historians agree this battle was one of the 15 most important of history. It assured the continuence of Bzyantium, as Attila for the remainder of his life looked west, and thus assured the Empire of the East would go on.
• 7) The Bzyantine Empire survives sieges of Constantinople in 717-18 AD, which, if successful, would have ended the Eastern Empire, and assured world ascendancy for Islam.
• 8) Battle of Manzikert occurred on August 26, 1071 between the Byzantine Empire and Seljuk Turkish forces led by Alp Arslan, resulting in the defeat of the Byzantine Empire and the capture of Emperor Romanus IV Diogenes, and in the long term, assured the loss of the anatolian heartland of the Bzyantine Empire, and it's fall.
• 9) The Fourth Crusade (1202–1204), originally designed to conquer Jerusalem by taking Egypt first, instead, in 1204, conquered and sacked the Orthodox Christian city of Constantinople, capital of the Byzantine Empire, establishing a shadow Latin Empire for 59 years, and ended what was left of the real Eastern Empire, though a shadow would remain for another 190 years.

• 10) The Fall of Constantinople came after a two-month siege by Mehmed II on May 29, 1453.

the loss of the Mother of Cities, showed the West how dangerous the Ottomans were and foretold centuries of strife with them. I would start with these ten, though the seige of Constandinople is not one battle, but it's importance historically should render it in the military project. These ten were picked out of a lsit of over 100 for the greatest impact militarily and culturally.

Medivial Battles: We can start with the Carolingians, and go from there.

NOTE: THIS LIST DOES NOT INCLUDE BATTLES OF THE ROMAN ERA, WHICH, IN THE CASE OF MANZIKERT, WOULD MAKE THE MEDIVIAL LIST ALSO!

• 1) Battle of Toulouse; a stunning upset victory in 721 by Duke Eudes gave Charles Martel badly needed time to build the veteran army which would stand him in such good stead at Tours, 11 years later, when he turned back the most serious attempt Islam ever made during the height of the Islamic Expansion Era at taking Europe, as it conquered the remains of the Roman and Persian Empire.
• 2) Battle of Tours -- turned back the most serious attempt Islam ever made during the height of the Islamic Expansion Era at taking Europe, as it conquered the remains of the Roman and Persian Empire.
• 3) Battle of Narbonne in 759 Pippin the Short retakes the last Islamic outpost on this side of the Pyrenees
• 4) In 778, Charlamagne led the Neustrian army across the Western Pyrenees, while the Austrasians, Lombards, and Burgundians passed over the Eastern Pyrenees. The armies met at Zaragoza and received the homage of Soloman ibn al-Arabi and Kasmin ibn Yusuf, the Moorish rulers. Zaragoza did not fall soon enough for Charles, however. He could not trust the Moors, nor the Basques, whom he had subdued by conquering Pamplona and Barelona, establishing the Marca Hispanica across the Pyrenees in part of what today is Catalonia, reconquering Girona in 785 and Barcelona in 801. This formed a permanent buffer zone against Islam, which became the basis, along with the King of Asturias, named Pelayo (718-737, who started his fight against the Moors in the mountains of Covadonga 722) and his descendants, for the Reconquista until all of the Muslims were expelled from Iberia. (though this is a series of battles, it is one campaign with a great many minor battles, but huge historial significance -- he left Frankish outposts in Iberia, the Moors never again came into Europe proper, and started the Reconquista.
• 5) Battle of Hastings on the morning of Saturday, October 14, 1066, Duke William of Normandy killed Harold, last Saxon King of England, and assured the mixture of Norman and Saxon which would produce Imperial Great Britain down through the centuries.

These are just five medivial battles, just enough to give you an idea of what I look for -- great historical significance in the aftermath -- what it caused decades, CENTURIES, down the road!

I hesitate to offer advice, but I would split the Roman Era Battles thusly:

• First, a list of ten most important battles of the Roman Era in toto, as noted above, then split as follows with secondary lists of:
• 1) 10 most important for Rome, the Republic
• 2)10 most important for Rome, East or West; while one Empire
• 3)10 most important for Rome, East Empire
• 4) 10 most important for Rome, West Empire (I can provide all the above)

The medivial era, I would split among the Carolingians, and Ottonians, (the Carolingians down to Otto the Great, the Holy Roman Empire, and developing France and Germany, the English wars of conquest on the continant, and finally, central European wars, including Poland, Hungary, et al.

The Mongol Era deserves a whole separate section, and Ain Jalut is the most important battle to be totally unknown, just about, in the west. You don't read about it in American schools, but it probably determined the fate of the world, in that it clearly is the moment the Mongols began imploding. Just some thoughts! I wish you all the best, and wish I had been able to help. You are a really nice person, and would have been fun to work with and for.old windy bear 18:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kirill_Lokshin"

I would like to thank you for your support for my candidacy for the Military history WikiProject coordinator position. I am now the Lead Coordinator, and I intend to do my best to continue improving the project. If you ever have any questions or concerns regarding my actions, or simply new ideas for the project, be sure to let me know! —Kirill Lokshin 00:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Lok Kirill, you will do a great job, and I congratulate you! I supported you because you are the best person for the job, and will do a great job. I assume the two asssistant coordinator positions went to Loppy and Miborovsky? Would you or either of them be interested in the notes I had put together on rewriting the entire series of Articles on the Mongol Empire? (I was also working on Batu Khan's article, and was going to proceed from there after I finished that article and of course The Battle of Ain Jalut). Kirill, what did you think of my suggestions on the battles of the Roman Republic/Empire/Bzyantine Empire, and dividing the medivial world between the west, and basically the Islamic world, and then the Mongol era? I was really curious what you thought of my ideas on Rome, and the history framework I suggested, and the 10 I selected as being so vital as needing immediate attention. I really would like your opinion on that! Take care, and again, you will do a great job. old windy bear 00:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it seems like you're the only member of the project with a strong interest in the Mongol Empire, so I think you should hold on to the notes for now; if anyone else drops by, we'll direct them to you.

I generally agree with your other comments. Most of the battles you mentioned have already been added to the worklist; I'll add the remaining ones shortly. As I said earlier, though, the major problem at this point is manpower; I suspect that this project will still have plenty of work to do a year from now ;-) —Kirill Lokshin 00:38, 6

February 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lok Kirill, I wish I could have kept working on the project, but i felt the voters spoke, and they didn't want my work or the type of article (more comprehensive, emphasizing the social and cultural influences of the battle as well as simply who beat who). I will miss doing the military history work, especially since that was my field, (not that I will drop it completely, I will monitor the articles I felt I basically wrote), but I will move on to literature and general entertainment. I will honestly miss working with you also. I wish I had been given an opportunity to assist you, I really felt I could have done so. WELL, the voters have spoken! I am surprised I am the only member who was interested in the Mongol Empire -- Lord, it shattered the existing order, and altered Islam, especially, forever, in addition to being an incredible influence in shaping Russia! I am afraid we are really centered on Rome, for instance, to the detriment of (for instance) the Caliphate, and the Mongol Empire. Did you think it is because most of our members are american, and american schools relatively ignore other cultures in favor of Rome as the overriding cultural and historical power? Anyway, take care. I am very happy for you, and sorry I could not help.old windy bear 00:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Lok Kirill, I forgot, I also had begun to gather materials for a comprehensive rewrite of the Roman Era battles -- whichever assistant is taking over, or yourself, might find them interesting. I had Gibbons original "Decline and Fall" in it's full (unbelievably lengthy and sourced), all of Norwich and Bernard Lewis's works, (some of Lewis's historical work on Islam does bear on the Byzantines, in particular), and 20 other various books on Rome. (believe it or not I have 2,000 books at home, 200 of which are pure military history, others, like Gibbons, a mix of military and cultural) What I had sent for was a thesis I helped a friend with many years ago on the Roman Empire where she concentrated on the military evolution of the empire, in particular, on the shift over the centuries from citizen raised legions to barbarian mercenary legions, etc. (she still had it, and with the notes and sourcing cites and quotes in the notes, it was a notebook of over 250 pages! I remember it well, as I did much of the research for her!) I think it would be incredibly useful when it gets here, and would gladly forward it to whoever is going to be working on Roman battles. old windy bear 01:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Military Project Coordinator!

Congratulations again. I sent you a message - which you may not have had time to answer - on my notes on the Roman Era, and materials I had sent for on it, which I would gladly forward to whichever assistant you have assigned to that task.

On the Mongols, I am finishing up the work I was doing, and wanted you to look at Mongol Military Tactics and Organization, which I reorganized, put in categories, sourced, rewrote where necessasry, and I think you will find that it now makes a nice edition to the military project. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_military_tactics_and_organization#Conclusion

Also, I had on my list the Mongol invasion of Europe, which was also tagged, and rightly so. I also reorganized that article, put in categories, sourced, rewrote where necessasry, and I think you will find that it now makes a nice edition to the military project also, if you wish to check it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasion_of_europe

Neither article was sourced at all when i got them. Fortunately, I have all those books in my own library, was able to check, do sourcing, set up references, and wanted to let you know so you could check them. I am also finishing Ain Jalut before I go. Again, the Roman Era materials I sent for would be valuable (along with the standards, Gibbons, Norwich, Runican, et al, all of which I have also) for the expansion of the battles of macrohistorial importance during the Roman Era.

Take care, Kirill, and hope you like the "new look" on Mongol Military tactics and organization, and Mongol Invasion of Europe -- I cleaned both up, plus the article on Batu Khan. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batu_Khan -- this one needed sourcing and references also, and I took care of that, and they are all legitimate) Let me know on this Roman stuff.

Respectfully, old windy bear 21:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might be best for you to hold on to your notes for the time being; we haven't really had time to set anything formal up yet. Alternately, you could put them on a personal subpage (like this one) and we could take a look at them when we're ready to work on the material.

On another note, great work on the Mongol articles! I hope you find time to do some more work in that area on occasion, even if most of your editing will be on other topics. 23:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Kirill Lokshin Hi Kirill! First, thank you for the kind comments on the work done on the Mongol articles. I am pleased myself. I have been VERY careful to source everything, and I honestly believe they are well written, imformative, and fit into a general group of articles I hope to eventually finish on the Mongol Era, the Pax Mongolica, and the later Nomad Invasions, primarily Timur the Lame, (Tamerlane). I appreciated your thinking of me to continue working in that area, which I will discuss shortly, after I explain why I cannot put the Roman info online easily. Kirill, the only problem with putting the Roman info I sent for on a sub page it is over a hundred pages of notes and source information, some of it in Greek and Latin. (I read both, but a lot of historians don't) A thought occurred to me, and I humbly offer it to you. I like you as a person, (our interaction on wikipedia has certainly been pleasant!) and want you to succeed as Military Projects Coordinator. I am a military historian. True, I am not limited to interest in one area - witness my edits in the article on Spike, (of Buffy and Angel fame!), but I am best suited by training to work in military history. While I am disabled physically, I have a huge personal library, much of it military history, and a good working knowledge of the subject. What i don't know, I can certainly find out, as I am a good researcher. I have the library of congress nearby, and am on good terms with a number of professors at the local universities. Would you be interested in letting me just work for you directly on projects in military history? For instance, if you could use me, you could direct me to either finish editing all the Mongol Era articles, and try to link them in a series of articles that provides our readers with a good grasp of the historical events, the personalities, the military tactics -- and why they were so unstoppable world wide -- and the battles, in context with the times. OR, you could shift me tonight to work on Rome, and merely tell me what you wanted me to do, and I would set out to do it, to the best of my ability.m Seriously, if you think Rome is a greater priority, and would like to have me on your team, tell me what you want done, and I will do it, and finish the Mongol project when there is time. If I work for you, I will work on what you feel is most important, period, and other projects when there is time. Well, I wanted to at least offer my assistance. I felt at the elections that people did not want my work here, but perhaps that was an incorrect way to assess it. I leave it to you. If you feel I could be of value, tell me what you want me to do, and I will proceed on it as swiftly as possible. If not, I understand, and will go on over to edit the Buffyverse! old windy bear 01:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's an extremely generous offer; thank you! I obviously don't want to force you into working on military history if you'd rather be editing something else; but if you don't mind, I could certainly use your help.

As far as what's more important: our coverage of both Mongol and Roman military history is pretty sparse (most of the Roman battles, except for a few from the Second Punic War, are merely stubs). I would suggest getting the Mongol articles fleshed out first—there are very few other Wikipedians working in that field—and then moving on to the various Roman articles as time permits. The order in which you might approach the various articles in these areas is entirely up to you; given that both of them are rather outside my particular area of interest, you'll be in a better position to evaluate which events are more important. —Kirill Lokshin 02:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kirill LokshinKirill, I am honored to work for you, and my expertise is in military history. Besides, you are a truly nice person, and it is a genuine honor to work for you. I will go ahead, since you have directed it, and finish the group of Mongol Era articles, which should not take more than 10 days to finish, as I have all the materials I need already. Would you like me then to literally start at the beginning, and begin with the battles of the Roman Republic, which began to become macrohistorical with the First Punic War. I would start there, work through the second Punic war, and then down to Sulla. Caesar and Pompey will require a HUGE amount of work, as will Sulla -- but I will have the materials on them here also. If this is what you want me to do, merely say the word, and that is what I will do. By the 18th I will be done with the Mongol Era articles and begin work with the Roman Republic and work my way literally to the Empire.old windy bear 03:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great! —Kirill Lokshin 03:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Lok Kirill, I am at your disposal. Unless I hear differently, I will go ahead and finish the Mongol Series of Articles, then begin literally from the early years of the expanding Roman Republic. In the interim, if you need me to do something else, just instruct me, and I will switch and take care of that at once. old windy bear 03:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Lok Kirill, HI Boss! Today I worked on the Battle of Legnitz, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Legnica. I also did Hulagu Khan, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hulagu_Khan I did the same things, put in categories, divided the article into sections as policy calls for, sourced, and listed references, and external links. Too more mongol articles done! Meantime, user 130.113.128.11, who has vandalized before, repeatedly, changed the battlebox numbers with no sourcing or references, just vandalizing, in the article on Ain Jalut, and I reversed it, but wanted to ask you to take a look at stopping this user, who has not done good edit yet, and whose purpose seems solely to vandalize.(what is wrong with people who seem to have nothing better to do than vandalize!old windy bear 01:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work! I'll try to keep an eye on the vandal; I suspect many of them have a (terribly misguided) impression that they can be the next Herostratus by meddling with Wikipedia. —Kirill Lokshin 01:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Lok Kirill, I am glad you are pleased with the work on the Mongol articles, and I will be done with the whole series on time, as we discussed, and get to work on the Roman Era. I don't understand these vandals; why change numbers in a battle box when you don't even make the attempt to source the change, it is not backed by ANY emphirical historical evidence, and makes no sense! But you are doubtless right, many of them have a (terribly misguided) impression that they can be the next Herostratus by meddling with Wikipedia. Well, I will leave monitoring them to you, and keep working! Take care, and I will on Rome by next week. (again, though, I stress if you need me somewhere else, just tell me!) old windy bear 02:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Lok Kirill,I finished revising Ogedei Khan today, if you would be so kind as to check that, did the same things, added material, put it in sections appropriately, and heavily sourced, and added references, categories, and external links. The article is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96gedei_Khan I should be done with the remainder of the Khans, Mongol battles, and whole Mongol Empire section by next week, and at work on the Roman Republic, if you approve the work done on the Mongols. I also had to stop today and change some wording in the Bonnie and Clyde article. Users were attacking Kate for alleged errors, which really were wording issues. I tried to reword where possible to alleviate the problems. We also had the normal vandalizing. I don't understand why people waste their time fouling up a great project! Thanks! old windy bear 02:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good (keep in mind, of course, that your knowledge of Mongol history is rather better than mine, so my comments are of a general character). You shouldn't feel obligated to write daily status reports, incidentally; I'm sure you have many more interesting things to do ;-) —Kirill Lokshin 02:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hin Thanks Kirill -- instead of bothering you with daily status reports, I wll just report to you when the entire Mongol Empire Era revision is wrapped up, and I am starting on Rome. That way you only get one report, with all the work listed, (since it is all basically related to the military history project -- heck, the Mongol Empire was solely a military empire from start to finish!). Take care, old windy bear 04:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I've warned the person. Let me know if they continue to vandalize. (Still haven't made it back to Margaret Tudor, just no time lately. Am about to make a quick trip over to Frank Hamer in a bit.) BTW, I was in a cab yesterday and we drove past the Vietnam memorial here in DC, made me think about you. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 20:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Katefan0Hi Kate! thanks for thinking about me. I have been there just once, and cried so hard that my wife had to wheel me away. I thought of my lost brothers, dead all these years, and for what? I remembered being spit on in National Airport, coming in for rehab at Walter Reed. Hard times! Has anyone told you you are a genuinely nice person, if not, allow me to do so! I hope you do like what i did with Margaret Tudor, and if you feel it needs more, merely say so, and it is done! I am mostly in Military Projects these days, but i am at your disposal Ma'am! Why Kate, why, did they send 54,000 of us to die, for nothing, and 300,000 busted up for life, why? I have not figured that out in 36 years and it haunts me. But thank you again for the kind thought. You are a genuinely good human being. As for that user, they just vandalized Bonnie and Clyde -- I corrected the vandalism, and then went to you. Why are people so venal as to interfere with a project like this, that just promises good for all? old windy bear 20:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just came back. I see Katefan0 has warned them and they haven't been editing for 5 hours so it should be OK now. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 20:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Talk) Thanks! Kate is taking care of it -- what I don't understand, is why someone would simply waste their time and everyone elses by sheer vandalism...old windy bear 20:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't answer that without resorting to personal attacks on the people who vandalize. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 21:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CambridgeBayWeather I understand (your stance, not the vandalism). I believe in this project -- it is not cheap talk, it means a disabled vet (me) gets up every day and works for free because I believe that Jimbo has an idea that means we can offer all the globe the greatest accumulation of knowledge, ever, period. For me, it means what skills i have left have a positive place to contribute. I do not understand those who would waste your time, or mine, with needless, stupid, vandalism. For what it is worth, you and Kate, the staff, who also volunteer, have my admiration. I try to contribute, and just scratch my head otherwise...Thanks for replying though, I appreciate the prompt and caring response.old windy bear 22:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. It looks like Wiki alf took care of him. Best, Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Harrison Thanks Tom - I worked for an hour to get the article back to normal -- we have worked for months to get an article that everyone was comfortable with, and some crazy school site destroys it in minutes! I don't understand people...thanks for responding! old windy bear 19:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Oldwindybear. I'm actually a little busy right now with deadlines at work and a possible pneumonia that may be starting. I'm sorry. I don't have as much time as I did the first time we met. I'm sure you can manage to keep your cool all while advocating the rights of wiki policy. When I have the time I will check out. 68.156.240.30 (I just checked it out. And it looks like he is a minimal vandalist). It also looks like he has been warned. If you have any specific concerns please ask me. As for rewording. Well, I can only say that a lot of people that contribute to wikipedia prefer to keep their wording. It's a POV (or fact within a POV) that they have figured out and they feel like they have added something. When you remove change the wording or the new sentence, the first impression is surprise. Then it's questioning... did I do it right? The once they realize it virtually the same thing or somewhat dissimilar (but with about the same meaning) they get mad. The good thing about wiki is that we can all work together to have better righting skills and everything can improve. The bad thing about wikipedia is that we can also work against each other. Well that's my scope on that. Will you please pray for my good health! Thank you. --CyclePat 03:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CyclePat Pat, you are a thoroughly decent person whose health I will gladly pray for. I honestly tried on the Bonnie and Clyde article to address the folks concerns by quoting directly from the sources -- yes, you are right, they will still probably be mad, but this is one of those that I believe (having learned a little about wikipedia!) that we just printed the facts, and folks will have to reach their own conclusions about what the result of those facts were. Actually, the wording they objected to was mine, so I changed my own wording, not theirs. I have learned, and am not mad, I am honestly trying to present a dispassionate article based on very very thorough research. (I am now the proud owner of every single book ever written about Bonnie and Clyde!) I changed my own wording trying to work with them, and make the article -- as you suggested, direct quotes from sources, and more dispassionate language. I thought the end result was what they wanted, but you never know! You are probably right -- they won't like the changes either! Sheesh! PAT, YOU ARE GOOD PEOPLE, AND YOU TAKE CARE OF YOURSELF!!!!!!!old windy bear 03:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting that, at the beginning of his career, Charles Martel had to raise on

]

Srnec I believe you are absolutely right. At the beginning of his reign, Charles depended on Kings, but by 720, he was making them. He never felt thereafter that he needed a title -- he had the power. And yes, I think you are absolutely correct that after Tours, and the Church's turnaround, with the Pope appealing to him for the protection of the Frankish Army, and the mantle of Christiandom's champion, he never felt the need for a title. Heck, lets face it, 1300 years later, people still hail him as Christiandom's savior! His son, without those accomplishments, doubtless was more comfortable with the title in addition to what power his father had left him and also was probably an attempt to make the power won by his ancestors permenant for his descendants. Did you like the more detailed section I inserted to cover the issues you raised? old windy bear 22:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I like the section. It completely covers the pre-Tours events I was referring to. I added links and removed some redundancy (the whole article needs to be vetted for consistency and redundancy, it went from a short article to long one quickly). The "After Tours" section needs more substance and a "Legacy" section should be added to the end of the entire article. Srnec 03:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Srnec Thanks, for the words on the section -- thanks for seeing it was needed!And thanks for your superb editing and writing. I will vett it for consistency and redundency both, and add a legacy section (moving some of the items like the "he who has the power," et al). Isn't Martel a fascinating figure in history? Martel really changed the face of Europe more than any single ruler since the fall of Rome, much more than his grandson, who -- and I am not deinerating Charlemagne -- used the superb army given to him by his father, which was formed under his grandfather. Also, despite it taking 18 battles to fully subdue the Saxons and bring them fully into the Frankish realm, the truth is, Charles Martel could have done it had he not been wise enough to see that keeping the nose of the Moorish Camel out of his Gaulish tent, was far more important than expanding his realm in the marches. And as you noted, he was in many ways a study in contradictions. he insisted on absolute power, yet never cared about the appearance of having it! He lived relatively humbly, maintained no court, and yet both created a true frankish empire that his descendants would forge into the countries of France and Germany, laid the groundwork for the Holy Roman Empire, and stopped the Caliphate when it was at the height of it's prowess, and able to field a far superior army in terms of arms and armour. But he had that ability to inspire men, and the vision to use them correctly. Fascinating...old windy bear 04:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked over it today; great work! (As good as anything outside a book is not that difficult, unfortunately; medieval history is sadly underrepresented on the Internet.) —

]

Kirill Lok thanks a lot Kirill! I am really trying to make the military project BETTER than a book! I had worked on Martel and Tours quite a bit as you know, and reading recent issues and edits, had to clean it up. I was delighted you liked it! The whole Mongol Empire Era revision is going well, and I will be on Rome by next week at the latest. Take care, and thank you for taking time to write me, like anyone else, it is nice when someone appreciates your work. And I actually really work on these; I not only buy my own books, but I read every book the library has, and send for those it does not. ANYWAY, THANKS AGAIN, AND TAKE CARE AND HAVE A WONDERFUL WEEK! old windy bear 02:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he was editing my comments, and so I reverted them. Then he posted as this "TruPatriot" -- of course, he was winding you up all along. The people who suddenly came to post in support of you, that was him, too, trying to be cute by misspelling lots of things in the messages. Anyway, I've just blocked him for a month, and will block on sight any of his sockpuppets as well. There's no reason why anybody should have to deal with that kind of behavior. Just ignore it going forward. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 01:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Katefan0 you would think at 55 that i would be smart enough to see him doing it, but i was not. I suppose I am a basically simple person -- I just post as me, and if it is wrong, someone will correct it. This guy is particularly viscious. I believe Jerry Dorsen and Pig are the same person. Well, thanks Kate. If you look at my work in the military project, Kirill will tell you I have actually made a positive difference. I really do try! Thanks for covering my back. I am not the kind of person to create endless personnas and sock puppets --Kate, what is WRONG with these people????? THANKS AGAIN...old windy bear 02:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with assuming the best of folks. =) As for what's wrong with these people -- vandals seem to me to be some combination of bored, spoiled, awkward, mean, immature, low self-esteem, take your pick. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 02:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(scribble) Thanks Kate. You know the strange thing? It just never occurs to me to play their games. I am what I am. I have my faults, but I try, and I would never think of all this deviousness. Hey, for what it is worth, working with wikipedia would be worth it just to meet folks like you and Cycle Pat! Thanks, they had me a little beat down tonight...old windy bear 03:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are on your way toward becoming an administrator. Give it a little more time... But I usually get a good fealing for these things. Keep up the good work and keep reading in on wikipolicy. --CyclePat 03:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

b.t.w. Thank you for the words of encouragement and prayer while I was sick. I'm feeling much better! (for the last few days now!) --CyclePat 03:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CyclePat Pat, you are a thoroughly decent guy, and I hope you feel better. I am really trying to do good work,and not get drawn into the craziness that the sock puppets and all that dsiplay. I am truly trying to contribute good things -- ask Kirill or Kate, (but I am sure you know, you usually are one step ahead!). Seriously, I hope you feel better. You are good people. And THANK YOU for the words of encouragement - tonight i needed them! [User:Oldwindybear|old windy bear]] 03:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:216.8.14.146 You amuse me, though I regret the time Kate and good users have to waste answering people of your ilk. I laugh at you any time I log in, mostly sadly, that you waste a half decent intellect, and then more with amusement, because I saw plenty like you during the war, mostly when they were crying and begging. You would crawl like a baby if forced to actually stand on your own name. Kate is a good soul, and myself? I have nothing but contempt for a coward that hides behind anonymous im's and whines, whines, whines. You have no true credentials of your own, so you make up some, and then cry and attack - without ever using your name -- those of us who are trying to work on making things better. You amuse me, abeit sadly, in that the internet allows the true cowards of the world to hide behind anonymous im's and brag about it! You actually brag about shifting addresses and hiding as though it somehow was a distinction! Amazing. Kate nailed it on the head when she said (when I asked what makes sick puppies like you operate): "As for what's wrong with these people -- vandals seem to me to be some combination of bored, spoiled, awkward, mean, immature, low self-esteem, take your pick." I say again, if you have something to say to me, say it to me, instead of wasting wikipedia space to do it in. Use that petty little mind to actually work on articles, instead of crying how bad they are. Do something positive, if you understand how. I am now ignoring you from this moment on. As to your snearing comment, why yes, I consider working on wikipedia an honor, and the editors have earned respect, as Kate has, by hard work, and real effort. Try it sometime. old windy bear 01:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, if you check that article, a user you had warned if they committed one more act of vandalism, did so again, repeatedly, after your warning. It would be greatly appreciate if you dealt with them, since the rest of us are trying to write good articles. Thanks! old windy bear 03:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What user, what article, also I am not an admin, so I dont know what you want me to do as I can't block them. --Adam1213 Talk + 05:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

dam1213 205.188.116.200 is the user, and the article is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Hamer i don't know what their problem is!old windy bear 11:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou. I vetted your newest additions for minor spelling and grammatical errors and added a small intro to the Legacy section. I was hoping to add some more quotes on his legacy from Henri Pirenne and maybe even some quotes from the primary sources of his time, but I'll do that later. The references and external links sections could be edited for consistency, but that's minor. If you are aware of any images in the public domain to add, please do. It could use some more, eh? Overall, it could use some more checking over for consistency and redundancy. This article probably deserves to be tagged as "good" by now and is rapidly on its way to featured article level. Srnec 00:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Srnec Thank you to you also! We have worked together well, and produced an article that is already sufficient to mark as good! I had hoped to add an additional quote from Gibbons, and another from the Arab Chronicles of the time. I will look for another image. Seriously, wasn't he an incredible man? His military achievements alone merit the title of greatness, but they were not the total of the man. He was able to resist the urge to conquer to the east, while the threat lay in the west, even if it meant less immediate reward. He cared naught for titles, as you so eloquently pointed out, yet used his power for enormous good. I am not seeking to say he was perfect - history says he tolerated fools poorly, and the burdens of defending christianity cut his life short with the stress. But if the measure of greatness is seeing a larger goal than personal enrichment, Martel earned the title "great," because history, western and eastern, says that he saw a clear danger to his children and their children, and chose to meet it, and defeat it, when the odds said he could simply not do it. And then he stole their weapons and armour, and (as you well know!) Then by his grandson's day, the basis of his army was his legendary paladins, knights, with weapons and armour taken straight from the Arabs and improved on with the addition of the buckler! Then he was the man who set the political and economic institutions in place that kept the Carolingian Empire running another century and a half! Srnec, I will try and find my quotes, but instead of just inserting them, will run them by you, and see how they fit in the total article you basically rewrote. And a fine job you did! Thanks! old windy bear 01:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Martel must be regarded as the greatest general of Western Europe between the fall of Rome and the rise of Charlemagne, though he probably exceeded the latter in generalship. He was an administrator and the true father of the Carolingian Dynasty also, but a military commander first and foremost. He also showed commendable prescience in fighting the Moslem menace when he, as his family before and after him, would certainly have preferred to deal with the Saxons so close to his own homeland. The macrohistorical importance of Charle Martel as an actor on the world's stage is almost undeniable: he is the primary father of feudalism, the greatest general of the Dark Ages, the saviour of Christendom (and all its unique values), a military reformer of the first rate (as the father of Western heavy cavalry), the founder of his dynasty's royal pretensions, the supporter of the German missions, and the unifier of Frankland. In many ways he is more impressive than Charlemagne, but he has his faults. His despoiling of church property may be justified on utilitarian terms using hindsight (it was even beneficial for the churh in the long run), but it was undoubtedly unjust and only his heroics on behalf of the Church at Tours and Narbonne could have resuscitated any figure who committed such thefts. Fortunately for him, he was such a hero. Also, though he bequeathed the state which allowed for Pepin the Short's coronation as king and Charlemagne's as emperor, he did not complete the work and left it to them to expend the energies he expended on military matters. This is not so much a fault as a mere lacking. By necessity, he less an administrator, lawgiver, reorganiser, and statesman than many others, but more of a true general, even a strategist (so rare for that time). Have you read Carnage and Culture by Victor Davis Hanson? It describes Tours and its antecedents and (macrohistorical) legacy in detail, though the author has a thesis (a good one, in my opinion) he is defending. I have read Santosuosso's work which you have referenced in this article and the Battle of Tours one. Martel is one of the "Great Men" of history. Srnec

05:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

SrnecNo question I agree with you in every respect. Charles Martel must be regarded as the greatest general of Western Europe between Aetius of Rome and the rise of Charlemagne, though as you say, he probably exceeded the latter in generalship. I would go further and say he was the greatest western military commander until Henry II, (a much underrated general who also built an empire!) I respect Charlemagne, but I believe Sir Edward Creasy's theory that Charlemagne merely used the army his grandfather had built and his father had maintained. As you point out, Martel was also an administrator and the true father of the Carolingian Dynasty, but a paramount military commander first and foremost. His prescience in fighting the Muslem menace when he, as his family (and the entire Frankish people!) before and after him, would certainly have preferred to deal with the Saxons so close to his own backdoor is absolutely critical to forming the world as it is today. You are also absolutely right in that the macrohistorical importance of Charle Martel as an actor on the world's stage is absolutely undeniable: he is, as you said, the primary father of feudalism, the greatest general of the Dark Ages, the saviour of Christendom (and all its unique values), a military reformer of the first rate (as the father of Western heavy cavalry), the founder of his dynasty's royal pretensions, the supporter of the German missions, and the unifier of Frankland. You are absolutely right also in his theft of church property to finance his maintanance of a standing army to train; the Pope was on the verge of excommunicating him when the literal spector of Abd er Rahman ravaging his way to Rome, with the commisserate destruction of every unique value the Christian church has bequethed us, elevated Martel to defender of the faith. Viewed in hindsight, his life was one long struggle, where he virtually set himself a mission to protect his family, faith, and people, and in order to do so, prepared and defeated at least thrice a foe who should have won -though by Narbonne, he had sufficient heavy cavalry to allow him to use his planax in the open. You were right to point out he was more of a true general, and absolutely a strategist (the only western one in that age!). I have read Carnage and Culture by Victor Davis Hanson. I also believe the author is primarily defending his own thesis, but I happen to agree with it, and it's view of Martel, Tours, et al. Santosuosso's work is interesting in that while it acknowledges Tours, it sees Narbonne as the true salvation of christianity. There, a Muslim army at least a third bigger in number than the Franks was decimated by Martel and the Frankish army, and again, it was Martel's generalship! Santosuosso though is another person who views Martel as vital to western history, for without him, Islam would have conquered and converted all the way to the steppes of Russia! Rome would have been reduced as Acre and other former Roman cities were to Muslim strongholds, with christians allowed to worship, but as second class citizens. Instead, it centers feudal Europe! Martel is without question one of the "Great Men" of history. I also believe Sir Edward Creasy's selection of Tours as one of 15 turning points in history, the 15 "great battles" is accurate, as his assessment of Martel as one who "met a superior foe in every way, yet by setting his own time and place, managed to defeat him." You are right that he left Peppin the Short and Charlemagne to finish the administrative apparatus he had begun, but even Charles enery had it's limits, and he had by necessity to devote the bulk of his to establishing that great army his grandson used so well. Gibbons points out that without taking anything from Charlemagne - who was undefeated in person in all his campaigns - Charlemagne never faced a foe who was even his equal. His grandfather took the ordinary peasant levies in 716, available only 4 months a year during the window between planting and the crops coming in, and by 732 had built the first professional western army since Rome, and only 5 years later had incorporated heavy cavalry into it, with the cavalry already the centerpiece at the time of his death! And lets face it, even with the innovations, Martel should not have won at Tours. Only absolute brilliance in his generalship saved the day. Well, you are more eloguent than I am, but we absolutely agree on Martel and Tours. old windy bear 11:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So long as the vandal's sole contribution on Wikipedia is that one vandalism, I don't think anything disciplinary is necessary. But if it becomse repetitive, I'll do something about it. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. You have to practically babysit some prominent articles, eh? I greatly expanded Charlemagne a month ago and I've been watching it constantly ever since. It has a vandalism every other day. Srnec 04:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Srnec i will go look at Charlemagne's -- I admire your work. I do know what you mean about babysitting sites, I treasure the Battle of Tours, Charles Martel, the Battle of Ain Jalut, Batu and Berke Khan's, and a few others - and yes, you have to literally check them daily, which is a shame. WHAT IS WRONG WITH THOSE PEOPLE???old windy bear 11:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's that? 216.8.14.51 03:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

216.8.14.51 If you have a problem with an article, you need to list the problem, section by section, source your dispute, reference it with accepted historial references, instead of merely slapping a tag on with no references, sources, or specific disputes.old windy bear 03:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is an "im"? 216.8.14.51 03:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

216.8.14.51 Let the editors decide. You tagged without citing what was disputed, sourcing or referencing, more of Pig's games. old windy bear 03:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

216.8.14.51if you challange an article, fine, but you have to list specifics, source your dispute, and reference same, instead of sock puppeting others. old windy bear 03:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seing as you may have both vandalised the article... On one hand he put a tag without explaining it. And on the other hand you kept removing it (though technically I would agree with you, and I would say that you should be able to revert it.) I think if we wait half day you should be okay to remove it! So... I am not going to do anything about this today! Good luck. Unfortunately let's wait until tomorow to see if the IP has some valid explanation. Sorry. Good luck. --CyclePat 04:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CyclePat Hey Pat, thanks! That is why I stopped removing it -- a revert war is useless, although he was tagging without explanation. I decided to kick it to you instead. I will wait through today, and if it is still there WITH NO EXPLANATION in the talk page tomorrow I will remove it, and note it was removed because no valid explanation was offered. It is Pig again, and he isn't writing explanations because Kate blocked him for a month, and is quite familiar with his style. ANYWAY, thanks for writing back, and for the fair decision. If he (or she, Pig may be female!), lists reasons for the tag, the reasons will be answered, and then referred to you and/or Kate for resolution. (with Pig no consensus is ever possible, he exists solely to dispute, disrupt and destroy!). If no valid explanation is offered, I will remove it, and state on the talk page I waited 36 hours to see if someone offered an explanation and no one did. Take it easy!old windy bear 11:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Oldwindybear, thanks for the compliment. It was very little effort on my part, and I'm glad it made a difference. I'm no history expert, but a couple of run-on sentences aside, the article already seems very good. I hope you continue polishing it, and consider nominating it as a featured article at some point.

Cheers, Cmdrjameson 00:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC) Cmdrjameson[reply]

Cmdrjameson Cheers to you also, and thanks again for the really excellent edits. I have worked nearly 7 months on this particular article, and will continue to polish it - with the help of folks like yourself! (As a historian, I get lost in the woods of the history timeline and forget the trees of the run-on sentences, which is where you are INVALUABLE!) I hope it is nominated. We, the group of people, Smerc, palmdogg, myself, yourself, who have worked on this article, have tried to make it, and it's sister article, (on Charles Martel), the best on the free net. A history prof at UMd told me this article was worthy of publication, so again, the work you did was appreciated, helpful, and meaningful! THANKS AGAIN, AND TAKE CARE! old windy bear 01:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The question of the Vikings is a difficult one, the answer to which we'll never know. Needless to say, they never invaded Martel's or Charlemagne's empires. However, based on historical evidence, two general lines of thought develop. It's possible the Danish invasions were too strong for any ruler to face. Certainly they were very persistent and opportunistic. It's also possible that the European rulers of the time were too weak and preoccupied to put of the stiffest resistance. The former possibility implies that not even a Martel could have successfully opposed them. I think, however, that Europe did successfully oppose the Vikings: in the end, Scandinavia turned to Christanity and is today one of the post pacifistic parts of the globe. I suspect that not even Martel could have simultaneously warded off both Islamic and Norse ivasions, while worrying all the while about his Germanic neighbours. Perhaps Charlemagne, without the dangers present to Martel, could have. Only if Martel had been blessed with a longer life could he have invaded Jutland and put the Danes under his thumb, but ultimately, only such action, as you say, could have stopped the Vikings. Luckily, they converted to Christianity before any such action was taken and the Viking Age came to an end. Hope this skirts...er, answers your question. Srnec 01:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Srnec I appreciate the fascinating line of thought. I agree. I don't think even Martel could have warded off both the Northmen and the Muslims, similtaneously. On the other hand, you note that they never invaded the Carolingian realm while either of those two, or Pippin, (much underrated as he was not the equal of either father or son, but still pretty spectacular for those days!) ruled. Martel had the muslims, and history shows he chose to face them, a wise choice. Charlemagne, not having that menance, would have roared north, and I truly believe would have subdued Daneland. It is all just speculation though, as the Norsemen terroized Europe after the great Carolingians were gone...and you are right, in the end, Europe prevailed much as the christians did over Rome, by conversion. But I find it interesting that despite having the naval capacity to invade the realm of Martel, Pippin or Charlemagne, they chose to wait, a very prudent choice, though as you point out, in the end, the cross got them anyway! I enjoy talking to you by the way, your work is outstanding, and thanks for the pleasure and honor to work with youold windy bear 02:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I don´t know what you mean, but let me explain it clearly: I need someone who knows Italian to check and corect the italian backronyms. I also need someone who knows Latin to translate correctly the english phrase: "The Senate and the Citizens of the People of Rome" into Latin. That phrase itself is the more acurate translation for the original meaning (the original meaning and not the phrase itself). There appears to be some doubt about that translation as you can see in the talkpage of the article SPQR. Flamarande 23:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flamarande Heck, my wife is italian, i will find someone for you who speaks and writes fluent italian == as opposed to Latin, which I speak, and which is NOT what you wanted. Sorry, i was trying to help, but will find you what you need! old windy bear 23:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words. In fact, I was taking part in a disambiguation project. In case you don't know, to do so, go to a disambiguation page (like metropolitan), click on "What links here" in the toolbox, click on an article, press 'Control' and 'F' simultaneously to find the ambiguous wikilink, and replace with the correct internal link (like I replaced metropolitan with Metropolitan bishop). I think it's fun, introduces me to new articles, and increases my edit count. Gilliamjf 09:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gilliamjf Fascinating! I did not know that, and it is certianly a useful tool. Well, you certainly are making some good edits, which is what we need. THANKS! old windy bear 11:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great minds indeed. Sadly, there are too many new people who make silly edits because they do not understand how Wikipedia works, but, on the same hand, anything's reversible and it's impossible to lose information permanently. I also reworded some of your latest edit (additions to the Civil War 715-718 section) in order to clarify the nature of the Holy Roman Empire. Srnec 02:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Srnec As I am sure you have always noticed, I respect your edits - I believe we work well together as a team. I am a very good historian, (you are equally so!) and you are a better writer. We are the essence of what wikipedia should be - cooperation and consensus! old windy bear 02:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How are you doing, Old Bear? Are you enjoying yourself? Do you need any help with anything? Take care... Johntex\^talk 02:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Johntex User:Kirill Hi Johntex! Hi Kirill, I am now in Rome! I am mostly working on the military project, though, as you probably know, I am in the Bonnie and Clyde dispute. Two editors are working on that though, and I have been asked to submit summaries of evidence in dispute by email rather than endless arguing on the talk page. I have done so, and the editors have been very fair. Thank you for asking about me, Kirill will tell you that I did a great deal of work on the Mongol Empire, and am now working on the early Roman Republic. I hope I have fit in, I have genuinely tried to do so, and to be a help. THANKS FOR ASKING ABOUT ME! (aside from the usual health problems, all is well!)

That is very good to hear. You hang in there and have a great time in Rome. Take care of yourself, we need your contributions. Best, Johntex\^talk 17:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Johntex Thanks John, have you read any of my Mongol articles, Mongol military tactics and organization, Berke Khan, et al? I am really trying. And I deeply appreciate nice folks like you asking about me. (some of the editors are aware I have dealt with chemo and other issues, some dating from problems as far back as the war - in any event, like any person, I appreciate someone caring enough to ask. And thanks for the compliment on my edits, I am really trying! old windy bear 19:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep cool. Everyone can make accusations about who dun what? Sometimes it's better to ignore such accusations. I'm glad to see you guys got your frustration off your back (I hope) however, we should discuss the facts and how to express them, not the attributes of the other party. (even if they may have started it) One reason, I've been trying to make this debate go by email was in case it ends up becoming "personal"! (as per

WP:NPA#alternatives) however an advantage of having it public is getting other peoples feedback --CyclePat 03:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

CyclePat Hi Pat! good to hear from you, and I will keep it cool. As far as i cam concerned, the issues have finally been winnowed down to two:

• the role of bonnie parker in the barrow gang crimes, including her admitted lack of warrants charging her with anything resembling a capital crime'
• the ambush, and it's horrific aftermath;

How you and Kate handle this is fine with me. I remain somewhat startled at how Pig shifts identtities so quickly = he is Jerry Dorsen one day, SchlimmPickens the next, none of them true. Amamzing! BUT, you and Kate deserve credit for getting the revision started! Hurray! good job, and you should pat yourself on the back, no pun intended, for being able to stay cool through Pig's various aliases and insults. It is the finish time: we are rewriting, or you are, and I am advising. Proud of you both! Take care, and thanks for writing me! You are a thoroughly good guy. My grandkids have kept me going today! old windy bear 04:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your invitation, I can only say that I am no expert on the early Roman Republic, but I'd be happy to copyedit (grammar, spelling, wording, structure, wikifying, etc) and I could perhaps do some research at my university library if it would be useful. I could certainly help more in the realm of late Roman and medieval military matters.

In response to you inquiry, let me explain why I suggested keeping "Catholic" but did not rv your edit. Yes, the schism between East and West had not yet occurred in 732, but the churches were vastly different in most respects. Also, Catholic is often used in contrast to Arian and other heresies in early medieval history, but these heresies were inconsequential or extinct by the time Martel. So, in short, you're right. I only thought that Christian was rather wide in its implications, for Eastern Europe was not threatened by the Moslems of Spain, but rather by those of Asia Minor. But, the implications of Catholic are probably too narrow. "Western Europe" would be a religiously-neutral, but nonetheless accurate, term, but "Christian" is fine and I won't change it. Srnec 04:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Srnec In pondering this, I think you are right, and it should be western christianity, or western europe. I do think the imposition of a muslim rule over Rome would have had profound implications for all of christianity, but you are right taht it would not have meant the end of the Orthadox Church. I am delighted you will work with me on the Roman project, editing is my great weakness, as you know! Plus, especially in the medieval arena, your knowledge is truly vast. SO THANKS! I am changing the term in the article to reflect "western christianity" which I think you are right is more correct historically. old windy bear 11:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. Sorry for the revert. (ESkog)^(Talk) 03:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ESkogThanks for writing, but no biggie! i felt I owed you an explanation of why I deleted the personal attacks. I was told not to respond to them, just delete them. (and any responses I had made!) but your courtesy in writing is GREATLY APPRECIATED - we could use a little more of that around here, ouch! THANKS! old windy bear 03:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, take your time and rest well; your health is far more important that mere Wikipedia work. Your contributions have been excellent so far, and I look forward to seeing what you can do on the Roman stuff. (We've just recently started a Classical warfare task force within the project; maybe by the time you get back it'll be in a position to help with some of the work.)

Wishing you a speedy recovery —Kirill Lokshin 04:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hin Thanks Kirill, I would be delighted to work on the classicial warfare project when I return, and thanks more for the kind wishes. You are truly a nice person, and a pleasure to work with and for...old windy bear 05:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi oldwindybear I have some questions on the Mongols military tactics and organization, but did not want to correct it directly, because these are delicate parts of the text. Currently I try to adjust cavalry tactics and its linked articles. Wandalstouring 20:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wandalstouring Hi my friend. Any assistance I can give on the Mongols and their tactics, just say so. You are quite knowledgable on cavalry tactics, and of course, they are considered the best light cavalry of history. old windy bear 10:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Better you incorporate it. Well, there were nobility and blackhats (freemen) in Mongol society. As far as I am concerned, meritocraty yes, but you had to be a member of one of these groups. As he was Buryat and not originally part of Ghenghis united tribes, maybe things worked different. Wandalstouring 21:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I already wrote my points on the

discussion board. It is about the use of bows. The Mongols did have two bows, one longbow (for accurate long range shots, showering) and one composite bow for close-up shots on horseback (not possible to shoot accurate on horseback over long distances). The other point is, being blacksmith was something to be proud of in Mongol society. Wandalstouring 12:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Wandalstouring Hey buddy, I incorporated the information on the two types of bows, and the variety of specialized arrows. I do believe because Subutai was Buryat, which was not one of the original united tribes, his rise was truly remarkable - but then, Ghenghis Khan had an incredible eye for talent, military talent in particular, look at his selection of Jebe, Subutai and Guo Kan, (Subutai being Buryat, Guo Kan Han!), for his "dogs of war." Thanks for your help! old windy bear 21:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wandalstouring Greetings my friend! You are absolutely right on all points. They did have two bows, and a variety of different arrows to go with them. Also, yes, a blacksmith was nothing to be ashamed of = but the point was that he was not a noblemen or Khan either, yet his son rose to command sons of Khans, and future Khans - he commanded Mongke Khan in the european campaign, and had 4 princes of the blood, including the future Great Khan, and the future Khan of the Kipchak Horde! It was not meant to deinerate blacksmiths, simply to point out that the Mongols promoted pretty much strictly on merit. And Subutai sure merited promotion! On the bows, do you want me to incorporate that into the article, or would you like to? Thanks, old windy bear 18:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Han Chinese as dog of war is very important, as far as Han sources are concerned, they felt mistreated, like sheep. Besides the four dogs of war were four "fabulous men" ending the civil war and uniting the tribes. Are you sure the Mongols had more than 3 tumen (30,000 men + ~100,000horses) when they attacked Central Asia, often their numbers are exaggerated because they switched horses in battle. Besides a political notion was, that the Shah based his rule on the terror of armed forces, well, there is always somebody who can do it better. Hunting down the leader after a descisive engagement was a Mongol sport. this way they gathered intelligence and the head of state did do little harm, while they subdued the country. In Hungaria most fortresses withstood the Mongol attacks (although they were not state of the art in European standards) and a guerilla war broke out. It should be mentioned that the Hungarians knew about the Mongol tactics, especially the part subduing the country. Much earlier because two expedition to their relatives from Hunnic times had witnessed a Mongol conquest. Actually the Hungarians were attacked because the king gave asylum to a tribe the Mongols hunted and that could have supplied them with light cavalry (but the relationship soon broke apart before the battle of Moha). Jochi has been questioned as direct descendant of Ghenghis (a reason for enstrangement from his brothers), during the time of required intercourse for his birth Borte was also kidnaped by another man. It is not blackhat, but darkhat. We do have some reference on the topic in wiki. I will search them, so you can better link your work.

"The population of the whole Mongol nation was around 200,000 people including civilians with approximately 70,000 soldiers at the formation of unified Mongol nation." That is a questionable statement in the Ghenghis Khan article. Calculate it and wonder where their children are. Even if they started being soldier at the age of 14 or 16. 20-30,000 in combat sounds more resonable to me (some men need to stay behind, some are not free and not soldiers, etc.).

Wandalstouring 22:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wandalstouring Greetings my friend! I was glad to see you put in your name for the military project assistant coordinator. You are very knowledgable, and a pleasure to work with. As to the size of the invasion force into central asia, it was probably around 3-4 tumans, the trouble is that the vast majority of sources cite it much higher - you and I both know people who the Mongols devastated liked to blame it on overwhelming numbers, when in fact they were just beaten by better soldiering, better weapons, and better leaders! But we have to cite the sources, so we go with numbers we suspect are way high. You are right that Guo Kan's ascention to Noyan and second in command behind Hulagu in the invasion of the middle east was a huge step for the Han, who did indeed feel like third class citizens. You are also right that the "Dogs of War" were incredible and remarkable men, great generals and great warriors in their own right. And finally, you were right again that the Shah loved terror as a weapon, and unfortunately for him, found someone who used it better. Ghenghis Khan's tactics of indirect attack, and mass terror worked EVERYWHERE. The Hungarians brought the wrath of the Mongols on themselves by sheltering the Cumans - they would have been better off giving them back to Batu Khan! And actually, most castles both in Hungary and in Poland survived the attack of 1241 - the Mongols simply bypassed most of them, as they posed no threat to the invaders, and so the Mongols didn't bother with reducing them. They kept their forces intact for the destruction of the armies being assembled to stop them. Probably Subutai never demonstrated more genius than in coordinating attacks at Legnica and Mohi two days apart, doing so while other armies were marching in relief, and chopping them all up piecemeal! His use of stonethrowers to clear the crossbowmen at Mohi was inspired, as was his building a bridge to ford the river downstream! He used engineers better than most modern generals. All of your help in improving these articles is GREATLY appreciated. old windy bear 22:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the Hungarians knew about the Mongol tactics. We even have the author of the source cited somewhere on the wiki. Well, they waged a guerilla war with their crossbows and had safe points to retreat with their castles. Also the retreating Mongols did face ambushes in the Carpatian mountains from Croatian reinforcements. Whether the usual Mongol warfare of devastating the country worked so well against the continuos resistance is questionable from the economic data. After the invasion the Hungarians were able to afford an increase of the latest model of fortifications, extremely expensive stonecastles had been 3 before and were over 10 within a few years. 1261 the Mongols came back to Hungary, but this time Béla was successful in defeating them. Sorry, but the four dogs of war and the four fabulous men are not identical. The later ended the inner conflicts, the first created and solved outer conflicts. If the source about 200,000 people is sure, you can simply point out, they did not have more than 40-60,000 men (and teenagers) capable of military service and it is once again absolutely uncommon for all men to be deployed offensive in a war. I think population statistics (archeological evidence) are a lot more certain than any contemporary source. For these calculations see also the Appendix on Bury about the Germanic tribal forcesWandalstouring 00:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wandalstouring Yes, they knew of the Mongol tactics during the first invasion, and they put up a better fight than they are given credit for - Subutai was simply the best general of the age, and he beat them with superior generalship more than anything else. He was also well aware they were working franatically to improve their defenses and upgrade their military - that was one reason he was adamant about pushing on into Europe in the winter of 1242-43, and would have, if the Great Khan had not died, and the news forced the retreat of most of the army, including Subutai and all the princes of the blood. We will never know what would have happened had the Mongols pushed on with their full power in a winter campaign - truthfully though, my money, if they had pushed forward in 42-43, would have been on Subutai. He was that good. (just an old man's opinion!)old windy bear 01:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Verbruggen states a special problem of warfare in Europe, another military genius encountered (William the Conqueror), castle next to castle, every 20km somebody had his very personal fortress (painted in his favorite color, when restauration does a good job and paints some of them in their neonlike colors, people start to cry). While the Mongols did not even take them in Hungaria, this country was quite low on fortresses and they were not high quality compared to their Western neighbours. All during their conquest before the Mongols had encountered strongholds, but enough area around to maneuver and forage. In Europe movement with bigger armies was restricted, because all the fortresses made it difficult to forage safely and rapid movement was neither possible, because strategic positions were occupied (roadblocks all over to pay for crossing this and that). To achieve any objectives you had to enter enemy territory and the problem was, you supply was running out all the way and all the time, so offensive units were limited to the most effective and mobile forces. That is one of the chief reasons Verbruggen points out for the development of the small knightly forces. At first sight this sounds good for the Mongols, but problem is they have to split to forage and are still under threat of guerilla attacks. So they do not control the area (like in their conquests before) as long as all these numerous castles hold their ground. In China a strong network of defensive fortifications posed them real trouble for some time till the Muslim pao (counterweight trebuchet) was introduced (well known in Europe and Western Asia). I suggest not to point out what ideas Subutai could have had, but what problems they encountered and what was to solve for a conquest of Europe, while on the other hand we can show the European monarchs never took the Mongols as a real threat for themselves, expect Poland, the Teutonic knights, Kievan Rus and Hungaria (Béla was taken prisoner by the duke of Austria and had to pay ransom, like Richard Lionheart). Wandalstouring 10:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wandalstouring I agree with the problems they would have encountered with the higher grade of fortrifications in central and western europe - I still believe Subutai's plan would have probably worked, it depended on a winter all out offensive, with similtaneous invasions of Austria and Germany at once, and having enough supplies with them to raze the countryside, so that when spring came the castles and strongpoints would not have the ability to resupply. It also depended on luring the bulk of the knights and levies out into open battle during wintertime, by razing the countries. But you are right, it is useless to speculate on what might have been. One point you also make which is vital is that the Central and Western European monarches never stopped their infighting. Look at Bela's imprisonment and ransoming - faced with the possibility of an all out Mongol invasion, you would think William would have been more interested in Bela's help, and the rebuilding of the Hungarian forces as swiftly as possible - instead he takes Bela hostage, and demands a ransom! Louis of France seems to have taken them seriously, his famous comment he was going to fight the Tarters or be a martyr remains to this day, but he was virtually alone in that foresight, the remainder simply saw no threat to themselves. The only reason the Knightly orders took them seriously was the losses at Legnica - there were Knights Templar there, and they fared no better than the Teutonic Knights. But when they tried to relay that to William, for instance, he was more interested in what he could exhort for Bela. old windy bear 11:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Béla had the Mongols in pursuit when he was taken prisoner. At first sight this sounds bad, but on the other hand, as he was prisoner of the Austrians, the other party hunting him, the Mongols, could not get him. Important thing about Medieval policy is the existance of official statements and inofficial policy. So perhaps we should be careful with bashing the Austrian duke and point out, the situation: Hunted by the Mongols Béla enters a foreign country, the duke there takes him prisoner and wants ransom. The Mongols have a cold case now (and no possible reason to be hostile towards Austria, like when the Hungarians granted asylum to the Cumans) and Béla can return home savely afterwards (Nobody can question Béla´s leadership by saying he was a coward, he went for help and was utterly betrayed). Wandalstouring 11:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wandalstouring Greetings my friend! It is true that William had no immediate threat from the Mongols = but that was only because Ogedei Khan had died, and Subutai and Batu were forced to call off the winter assault on Austria and Germany. His actions ended up not harming his people, but it was simply fate that saved him, not any foresight on his part. I don't fault Bela at all - he went for help in good faith, hoping that the Mongols would be seen as the great danger they were, and was betrayed. old windy bear 18:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up! I just blocked the sock indefinitely. Also think I'm going to remove his comments from the talk page. It's uncalled for and he's a blocked user anyway. Thanks again. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 12:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you beat me to it in terms of removing his comments from the talk page. Cool. I'm hoping that we won't have to fully protect the talk page but we might have to. Not sure if you've figured this out, but what he did was create a bunch of user accounts on the 9th and then waited until the 4 day semi protection waiting period had passed and then posted to B&C. *sigh* --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 12:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(cat scratches) No, I had not figured out how he did it - just that he created yet another sock and went at it again. I am at a loss as to why he hates me so badly. I truly never did anything except argue with him, and I did point out that if you pretend to be 1,000 other people, folks find it hard to take you seriously. (and of course no one does take him seriously except as a huge waste of time!) Oh well, thanks for the help! No one likes to be mocked for their disabilities, for instance, and he is quite good at that. I find his comments puzzling, on the one hand, he claims I "stole" his article on Bonnie and Clyde, and then immediately after, blames me for rewriting it, and ruining it! Yet he cannot see that doing both is impossible, and actually, I did neither. I, and a group of other people, rewrote the article to reflect the best history available, as to the limited role Bonnie really had. (the fact no jurisdiction had a single warrant on her for a capital offense!) ANYWAY, have a nice day, and thanks! old windy bear 12:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I've never understood it either and I've been doing this for 16 months now. Take a look at

Disputed status of Gibraltar. Katefan and I (along with others) battled this user named Gibraltarian for THREE months. He was blocked by an admin...had an arbcom case against him...and yet he just kept at it, day after day. Yeah I don't get it either. Anyway, if you need further help, let me know. I work 3rd shift, so I'm usually active overnight. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 04:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Disputed status of Gibraltar

. Amazing! I don't suppose I should be surprised, but I am. People get so nasty over the most foolish things. The only good thing the War did for me was leave me determined not to fight ever again over foolishness... Thanks for the offer on help, you are a nice person, as Kate is, a rarity in today's world full of angry people! Take care! old windy bear 11:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(cat scratches) Hey Buddy! I have called for your help in the Bonnie and Clyde and Frank Hamer dispute. A user named My2cents is making wholesale deletions without seeking consensus, including deletions in the Frank Hamer article I wrote, and which Katefan0 rewrote at considerable effort. he simply deletes sections wholesale, with no historial explanatino, no dispute of facts - he just doesn't like the information, so removes it. I have asked for your help, and other editors, to examine the issues in dispute, and decide whether this user shoudl have the unilateral right to simply delete information wholesale without explanation or factual basis for same. Thanks! I smell Pig's involvement with this somewhere. old windy bear 14:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Let me know if ever you need any help. :-) AnnH ♫ 18:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AnnH Thank you. It is puzzling to me how anyone could mock a vet in a wheelchair, but Pig does, in his vendetta because I disagree with him on Bonnie and Clyde. And the sad thing is, he really has no interest in making this a better enclyclopedia - i am a fanatic believer! - but interest in making as cruel a statement as possible. It doesn't bother me in a personal sense, but it saddens me that such a bright mind is so ill. THANKS for your kindness! old windy bear 19:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Musical linguist beat me to it. :) so the sock is blocked. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 11:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Rome may be the area that needs the most work at this point. Feel free to follow your own inclinations as to what should be worked on, and in what order. You might also want to drop by the Classical warfare task force and/or speak directly with Vedexent, who has been trying to do some work in that field; he may have some better ideas about what areas need particular attention.

If you have other things you'd like to work on instead, of course, you shouldn't feel obligated to listen to me in the least ;-) Kirill Lokshin 18:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Welcome aboard - if aboard is where you really want to be ;) We can use all the help we can get, and someone with a degree in history is most welcome. If you want, feel free to put your name down in the member list of the military history wikiproject and the classical warfare task force :)

We don't really seem to have any "current projects" for the CWTF yet - we only have just over 10 members - but we can probably start to do that now. I'm thinking that the

are probably good places to start for us. For minor "grunt work", there are lots of articles listed on the CWTF page that don't have "battle boxes" yet. I don't know - the CWTF is new and unformed enough that we're still trying to get our bearings :)

Just out of curiousity, where does your area of specilization in histroy lie?

Once again, welcome aboard :) - Vedexent 00:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vedexent My friend, honestly, I consider it a great honor to be allowed to work on wikepedia. I am a true believer in Jimbo's vision of this as the single greatest repository of knowledge ever created.

• My area of specialization is medieval europe, but I am fairly well versed in the Roman Era, by that I literally mean from the early republic, to the Empire, to the Eastern Empire, the Carolingian's, (I consider Charlemagne to be the legitimate "heir" to the vanished western empire, and the de facto and de jure father of the Holy Roman Empire - though one could argue the basic Carolingian empire was created by Martel and polished by his son and especially Grandson). . Now Voltaire may have been right: it certainly was not Holy, it was not classically Roman, and not an empire in the purest sense. But as my friend Smec says, (we worked a great deal together on the Battle of Tours, and Charles Martel - both of us are great Charles Martel fans!) the Holy Roman Empire constitued an enormous political power for a time, especially under the Saxon and Salian dynasties and, to a lesser, extent, the Hohenstaufen.
• Please forgive my stupidity, but I lack the link to the member list of the military history wikiproject and the classical warfare task force - if you send it, i would be honored to be a member. I would like to begin with the real turning points of Roman Republican military history - the Punic Wars. (if that is okay with you!) I am recovering from some heart woes, so my work will not be as swift as normal, but I will do my best. If you want to see good examples of my work, as I said, Smec and I basically wrote the Battle of Tours, and Charles Martel articles, and I wrote most of the article on Mongol Military Tactics and Organization.

Just let me know what to do, and thanks for welcoming me! I am honored! If Smec is not a member, I urge you to recruit him, he is brilliant and a great writer! I truly do believe in this project, and want to help...old windy bear 01:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot to give you the links. They are the Classical warfare task force of the Military history WikiProject. I think the Punic wars are an excellent place to start if you want. Right now we're trying to figure out if the Battle of Carthage was in 149 or 148 ;) Glad to see someone really enthusiastic about the projects :) I look forward to working with you :) - Vedexent 02:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vedexent Thank you again, and I look very forward to working with you. I am going to register now. old windy bear 04:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Oldwindybear. I've semi-protected your talk page because of particularly nasty messages. That means that anonymous users won't be able to post there, and neither will very-recently-registered users. I'd feel happier leaving it semi-ptortected for a while, but since it's your talk page, I thought I should let yo know, so if you'd prefer me to unprotect again, please say so. Regards, AnnH ♫ 23:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Musical Linguist I thank you from the bottom of my heart for your kindness in semi protecting my talk page. I am at a loss why Pig would hate me so - he has taken considerable joy in the past mocking wheelchair/disabled, and in making threats, and in truly viscious cursing and ranting. Now, after the war, and all that has happened in my life, I do not fear this foolish little man, (oh, but he must yearn so for attention and his envy is sad!) but my grandchildren read my user page, (and thus talk page!) and are very proud of old Grandpa. I would be saddened enormously if they read something like what you were referring to, and I think you were both thoughtful, and enormously kind in acting to shield the page. God Bless...(by the way, my family is of Irish extraction, with an american indian of mixed blood tossed in!) I want to see Fair Dublin City, as Molly Malone says, before i die! Thanks again, you are just a good human being...~~

It is hard to tell what I did in the history of the article, but I read the whole thing for grammar and other technical aspects. I also added a few small parts (death of Grifo, Donation of Pepin) and reworded some sentences. Most significantly, I believe, are the phrases I removed and the reasons. I also explained and justified them on the talk page, but I thought I'd just past that here for you, as well.

I removed the reference to the popes in danger from the Moslems. I believe that threat is still in the future for the mid eight century papacy. The Lombards were the prime threat.

I removed the sentence "During his reign, Pippin's conquests gave him more power than anyone since the days of King Clovis." I believe that his power, as with that of almost every king before him (excepting the rois fainéants), far exceeded Clovis'. I think it would be better to say that his position in the Carolingian dynasty is as that of Clovis in the Merovingian, but I haven't added that yet.

Finally, I removed some phrases in the Legacy section which I believed tilted towards POV. That is, his greatness relative his father and son is subjective and it is best to merely state that the general perception (both scholarly and more popularly) of hims is that of a lesser man between two greaters.

All said and done, good edits. I had been hoping to expand that article, myself, but its always nice to see that you're not on your own in these projects, isn't it? It could use more expansion, but I'll have to look up information on him first. Srnec 05:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Srnec My friend, it is always nice to know you are not out there on your own - and until you came along, I thought I was! I greatly appreciate your help, because your writing is superior to mine, and I like to think we make a good team, each of us contributing facts, and you putting the polish on the diamond, so to speak! In this case, I also felt Pippin's article was woefully inadequate, and this is just the beginning. I have a book on the great Carolingians coming in, which will give us some really valuable information on him, especially - I think we have most of the pertinent information on his father and son. Take care, and thanks again! old windy bear 03:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter Issue I - March 2006
Project news An independent military history peer review has been created for the benefit of the project. A number of articles have already been reviewed, receiving significantly more feedback within the project than they did on the generic peer review page. The project's Collaboration of the Fortnight got off to a great start with Ferdinand Foch and is now focusing on the military history of Spain. Two new Middle Ages —have been created. An effort to build a catalogue of high-quality maps for use in military history articles is now underway. The newly-formed translation department is looking for volunteers to help with translating featured articles from other-language Wikipedias.	From the Coordinators Welcome to the inaugural issue of the Military history WikiProject's newsletter! We hope that this new format will help members—especially those who may be unable to keep up with some of the rapid developments that tend to occur—find new groups and programs within the project that they may wish to participate in. Please consider this inital issue to be a prototype; as always, any comments and suggestions are quite welcome, and will help us improve the newsletter in the coming months. Kirill Lokshin, Lead Coordinator
Current proposals Proposed guidelines for categories of military people are currently being discussed. A number of issues have already been resolved, but the proposed scheme is still in draft form and further input would be very welcome.

delivered by

]

I just looked at that article for the first time in a while. I think its getting kind of long and a little redundant. It needs to be completely reread and edited to streamline it and remove redundancy (stuff mentioned more than once or explained in more detail at another article). I'll do some editting, but I though I bring this to your attention, you should look at it and see if there's anything that could be removed without creating a deficiency or is there anything that could be rewritten in a simpler, shorter style. I think the article's good up until the "Eve of Tours." The Battle of Tours has its own good article and perhaps some of the stuff from that section and the "Legacy" (which is long) could be moved there. Thanks. Srnec 00:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Srnec I agree completely. Why don't I do a first draft rewrite tomorrow morning, and if you are not super busy about noon, check in and take a look - you will find much of it rewritten, and redundencies removed. I do love that article, as you know, and appreciate your giving me first shot at a rewrite - then you, who are a better writer, can polish up. Thanks! I will get to work on it tonight, and have it posted by noon on sunday. old windy bear 01:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Srnec I believe you will be pleased with the deletions of redundent wording, and rewording of the article. You can see in the history what was eliminated, and reworded, and I believe it tightened and improved the article. I do think it important to mention that essentially he fashioned the form of government which would reign over all of Europe for the next 700 years with his fashioning of fiefdoms loyal to the crown, though he - as you so aptly pointed out - dispensed with a crown de jure and functioned as a crown de facto at life's end. I read recently a fascinating article claiming he could have taken Narbonne by siege had he chosen to tie up his army and resources - but he felt he had to concentrate on organization and administration of the Frankish realm he would be handing to his heirs. He was content to smash their armies, and leave them isolated behind walls which would ultimately quietly fall to Pippin in the coming years. Also, it is vital to note his really incredible feat of rearming his forces from infantry to a mix of heavy cavalry and year-round professional infantry, plus the levies, in 5 short years! He was the father of European knighthood, among other things. Anyway, I am sure you can tighten it further, but I did eliminate much redundancy, move some things, and tighten the wording.old windy bear 03:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looked good, though it could probably use some more. I haven't got the time though: exams. Srnec 05:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, i am in school too, and went back to work part time after a year off with chemo, and the disabilities make that hard enough anyway! I will do additional work as I have time. Thanks for your help. You simply are a better writer; I believe my research skills are sound enough, but you are just a better writer. Thanks for hte help, and good luck with exams - I have two classes this time also. 55 and still in school! Ha! old windy bear 17:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get me wrong man, I'm not trying to undermine your efforts. All I'm asking is if the article is heavily sourced then why not using inline citation. About the POV, I'm not asking for favourable Muslim view (the issues of

]

Amir85 Amir, again, Peace and the Blessings of God Be Upon You. I am well aware of the horrors that took place under Umar when the faithful conquered Persia - the illusion that Persia lept willingly into the arms of the Caliphs is just that, as you know better than I! I adhere to Norwich's theory that both the Persian Sassanid and Greek Bzyantine Empire essentially beat each other into exhaustion, and were ripe pluckings for the savage desert tribesmen who came swarming out of Syrian plains after Umar assumed the Caliphate. Both empires were literally ripped apart, and the attrocities well known to those who wish to find the truth. As to this article, I have already made a few changes - if you check the so called "contempary analysis" I added "Whether this is a "good" or "bad" result is a matter of perspective. Sir Authur Clarke, though no historian, believed had Islam triumphed at Tours, centuries of secular strife would have been avoided, and the East and West unified. William Watson believes it would have been a disaster, destroying what would become western civilization after Renaissance." The sources for that are Sir Authur Clarke's computer simulations on what would have happened if the Islamic forces had prevailed at Tours, and for Watson, "The Battle of Tours-Poitiers Revisited", Providence: Studies in Western Civilization, 2 (1993). Nor will that be the last. I will go through, and carefully recheck everything - but please believe me, all the facts are legitimately heavily sourced - for instance, the records on the invasions of 736-737 are mostly from the Arab Chronicles. Why not cite each source at each line? Because the article would be 10 pages long, it is written as an encyclopedia article, where if a fact is in dispute, we discuss it here, bring the sources, and reach consensus. I personally do read Arabic, so I have read the Arab Chronicles in their original form. As for this Battle, all parties and faiths pretty much agree that it was a crucial turning point because had Emir Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqi Abd al Rahman, a pious man, good ruler of al-Andalus, and good general, defeated Charles Martel, there was no christian power to stop him from going on to Rome, and speading Islam by force of arms. Martel's stand at Tours is one of the great turning points of history - again as you know, the era of Islamic expansion was closing, as the Umayyad Dynasty would soon be destroyed (except for the two princes who escaped to al-Andalus, but that is another tale!) at the Battle of the Zab, and the period of Islamic unity would be at an end. I promise to faithfully reread this, and make certain there is no POV. Please believe I have NO desire to allow such! For instance, the other day someone changed the article to say Martel received that name for smashing "Arabs." I corrected that at once. As you know, his army was drawn from all parts of the Caliphate, but primarily from Northern Africa, Berbers, Arabs, some Persians, and a signficant number of Greeks, oddly enough. But I will recheck, and again, if you have any specific fact you want a source from which it was drawn, just ask, either here, or email me, and I will send you the exact book and other sourcing. I lived three summers in Cairo, traveled to Persia, and have truly tried to present this article fairly, from all the viewpoints. (as did the Muslim and Christian historians who helped write it!) old windy bear 11:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi! I'm dropping messages to a few people who've worked on the Podkayne article about the ending. I just finished re-reading Podkayne of Mars (Berkeley Medallion Edition, 1/1970, 7th printing). In this ending Poddy is hurt, but will recover, and Uncle Tom lectures Dad. The Wikipedia article says "Podkayne is injured by the bomb, but will recover, and the moral of the story, as spoken by Uncle Tom, is omitted entirely." Do you know if there are three different endings? I'm wondering if this could be someone's memory playing tricks on them, or perhaps the 1995 version with both ending omitted UT's lecture in one of the endings to avoid repeating it. I don't suppose you have a first edition copy of this book? DejahThoris 07:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DejahThoris I have an edition with the original ending, where Podkayne dies, with a far more shattering lecture from Uncle Tom, and it is simply no comparison in the devastating affect the ending with her death has. There are only two endings: one she dies, one she does not. Hope this helps! If you have never read the ending with her dying, I would be willing to copy it, and mail it to you, if you sent me an address. old windy bear 18:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Sorry to bother just want to ask whether you have any sources dealing with Sassanids, their army and battles ? Best wishes. Amir85 18:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amir85 Peace and the Blessings of God to you my Brother, yes, I have several books that have information on the Sassanids, History of the Later Roman Empire by Bury, which discusses extensively the conflict between the Byzantine Greeks and the Sassanids, which weakened both powers to the point that the Arabs destroyed both, pretty much; The Battles that Changed History, which talks extensively about the Sassanid warrior class, and their army; The Political Systems of Empires, which also talks extensively about the Sassanids, and the way they governed their empire, and of course, the great Byzantine triology by Norwich, which also goes extensively into the Sassanids, because from 315ad to the conquest of Persia by Umar after Abu Bakr's death, the Sassanids were the bane of the Eastern Roman Empire, so he delves considerably into their empire and army. Essentials of Medievial History si another book I have with considerable information on the Sassanids. You know of course I am sure far better than I, that they had a very powerful and disciplined warrior class that had fought Imperial Rome successfully from the time of Caesar! The tragedy of the destruction and loss of Sassanid culture is horrific, and not much spoken about in the way things are presented today, as though the Islamic conquest was by choice. Are you interested in any of these books? I could send you one if you need it - just send it back when you are done, or I can look up anything you need. old windy bear 19:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to begin with, I need some more information about

Asawaran (Azatan) knighty caste and their influence on European medieval knights, I did collect some information but its not enough for sure. If you could help me out here. All the best. Amir85 18:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Asawaran (Azatan) knighty caste and the later European feudal system, which mimiced the way the Sassanids granted their heavy cavalry the status of minor nobility, and mobilized them in the precise manner the Europeans did later -- Martel's genius primarily lay in taking what other people had, and adapting his relatively barbarian franks to use it, and in being where he was least expected to be. For instance, as you know, he seized church assets to pay year round soldiers, to train and use the ancient Greek phalanx as the only means his infantry had to counter the Islamic Cavalry. After Tours, it only took him five years, using literally booty from the dead for a start, to create western heavy cavalry. But the base system for all later "Knights" began in the Sassanid Empire. Norwich goes into their devastating destruction of classic Roman legion formations, and the forcing of the Greeks to adopt cavalry. Well, as I said, I will gather some stuff up, source it all, and email it to you.old windy bear 19:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Dear respected Veteran, I also need your precious help about Sassanid economy if you have any. I wish you luck ! Amir85 20:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

]

Hi. You could directly edit the aforementioned subjects in their respected page instead of emailing them to me. Its a matter of preference, whichever you are the most comfortable with. Amir85 06:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amir85 Brother, I will leave that up to you, as a matter of respect. These were "your" articles, and while I am honored to help gather information, if you would like to shift through it, and post what you feel is best in the article, that is fine with me. I should have the information fully gathered, sourced, and ready for transmission to you by this coming friday. old windy bear 11:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi man, sorry to bother you again. My email address is the one that I've registered in WP so you can mail me through email option in my user page. Cheers. Amir85 07:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The

]

Sorry for forgetting to reply; I think the reason why the links won't work is because brackets ([ ]) are required for the link to work (example: [2]). I believe I have added the

]

AndyZ You have the article wonderfully linked - I have the sources, literally, as many as that article, but don't have them linked. Your help is GREATLY APPRECIATED. I will work on adding specific links probably this weekend. No one has challanged the facts which are presented cited, simply because virtually all of them are online - the warrants for instance, are kept in the FBI data base, and they covered ALL warrants in existance at that time! But your article is what I strive for, linking EVERYTHING so that there are no questions, period. THANKS AGAIN FOR THE HELP, AND THE DIRECTION. old windy bear 20:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't invoke my name on the peer review page for Bonnie and Clyde. I'm trying not to be involved in all of that. Thanks. --Woohookitty^(meow) 23:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woohookitty Sorry buddy, and i hope you will accept my apology, I will go and remove it now. I only did it because I trust your judgement and fairness, but I certainly understand your not wanting to be involved, and apologize. I hope you won't be angry with me, I happen to respect you a great deal for your fairness, and good work here. old windy bear 23:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like an explanation. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frankish_Empire&diff=51842953&oldid=51842340

]

]

Good, that's very assuring.I didn't want to sound agressive or anything, it's just like it happened before that people removed the Dutch template because they thought it wasn't important enough.

]

Sander

The Dutch Template is EXTREMELY important, and I added a note in that section that says: "The history of the Netherlands, a vital part of the empire, was moved here solely due to it's size, and not to diminish it's importance in any way." You did not sound aggressive at all, merely asking a very legitimate question: was the move to diminish the very important role of the Netherlands, and to minimize their history, and the answer I hope shows you that was NEVER the case, but to make sure everyone understood, I added the caveat to the secton. Take care!old windy bear 17:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We've received a request for a

]

hin Kirill, I am sorry I have been so out of touch. I returned to work after a year off after chemo, and heart trouble, and it slowed me considerably. I have lately concentrated on defending my Carolingian articles, and Bonnie and Clyde, but I would be delighted to help with peer review on the Mongols - I wrote a Master's paper on them, actually, and do have some knowledge. (plus actually visiting Mongolia, which was a strange trip!) What do you want me to do, and how is the appropriate manner to do it? Forgive me, but I want to do this right, with source citing on the review, et al. Please direct me, and I will be honored to help. old windy bear 19:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's good to see you back! :-)

As far as the peer review: you can make any sort of comments and suggestions (with specific citations if you feel they would be helpful) right on the peer review page; I can create a section for you to use if that would be easier. (You can, of course, make changes to the article itself as well; but I don't want you to feel obligated to work on it if you have other things to do.) Kirill Lokshin 19:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

>]]inNo, no, after examining the article - which has a number of mistakes and inaccuracies -- I would like to do a rewrite, source it, and list that on the peer review for your evaluation. Actually, a section for me to post it would be fine. I can have it done by this coming friday. I have a significant collection of works on the mongol era, their empire, the invasions, (as you know, I rewrote most of those articles, but missed this one!), and I will start tonight. For instance, the problems with Jochi started long before the seige that the current article cites; Jochi's parentage had always been an issue, since the mother of the Khan's four sons had been abducted and raped, and Jochi was born around nine months after her rescue, his parentage was always in question. The Khan chose to acknowledge him due to his love for his wife, but there were ALWAYS problems, which ultimately brought down the empire. That branch fighting with the others, and that is just one problem. I will rewrite the whole article, source it heavily, and post it wherever you tell me, for review, if that is acceptable, and thanks, it is nice to be back and an honor to be working for you again! old windy bear 20:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, great! I've created a section on the peer review page (linked above) where you can make comments as needed. Thanks again for taking a look at this! Kirill Lokshin 20:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Lok I am just going to rewrite it, and put it in the section for review, with sourcing listed, so we can discuss what was wrong, and why it was corrected - for instance, while some of the issues are true on conflict in the Muslim world, they are not altogether true, as you probably know. The Shah had other problems with the Caliph, not the least of which was that he refused to pay the traditional obligatory homage to the authority of the Caliph, which was of course merely honorary by that time - still, the article as it stands sounds like the Caliph did not wish to name him Sultan - that was never the problem. The problem was that the Caliph expected him to come to Bagdad, (or even send appropriate representatives with presents - bribes, frankly) like any Sultan, and acknowledge his spiritual leadership. Even the great Alp Arslan, a far greater conquerer and man, did the obligatory homage. Anyway, I am on this for you, and it is a pleasure, thank you for asking me.(I can see why people are having problems with this article in toto) old windy bear 21:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Lok I have begun the rewrite, section by section, sourcing as I go along. I first inserted the standard three paragraph opening, then went to work on the first section. If you have a chance, look at the first five paragraphs, all heavily sourced, and hopefully let me know this is the direction you are hoping for, a more historically accurate, sourced, nuanced, article. I have also worked elsewhere in the article, making it more historically accurate, and beginning what will be heavy sourcing. See the conclusion also, and please let me know if this is what you think improves the article.old windy bear 02:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill LokKirill, I have begun the rewrite of the article on the Khwarezmid Empire. Would you please check the new introduction, which has three paragraphs instead of one, and see if this is a direction you like? I am now into the article itself, going paragraph by paragraph, rewriting for historical accuracy, better nuancing, and sourcing heavily, which was totally missing. I have also worked in the introduction obviously, but also in the article, making it more historically accurate, and beginning what will be heavy sourcing. See the conclusion also, and please let me know if this is what you think improves the articleThanks! old windy bear 23:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

from one's talk page. It's okay to remove trolling and harassment; it's not okay to remove genuine warnings. Of course, people can disagree as to whether a message is a genuine warning or harassment. I personally have no objection if you remove the sockpuppet notice. Hope this is sorted out. All the best. AnnH ♫ 13:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AnnH Thanks, I will remove it, because he has not requested Check/User, which he knows perfectly well will show I never created the account, or made the edits. As you so eloguently pointed out, if putting a talk page message on makes you a sock puppet, you would be one, lol. By the way, did you notice my awe that you are "Cathoilic" - I never knew there was such a faith. I find it sad, but wryly amusing that when people attack you, or myself, they inevitably do so in a really stupid manner. Perhaps there is a moral there...Thanks again...old windy bear 14:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the new articles (stubs all) created for some of Martel's early battles at the

]

Srnec This is great! I can help expand these also! Thanks so much!old windy bear 10:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Srnec Thanks - don't you find it fascinating that virtually alone of the leaders in history, he never executed his defeated rivils? It almost goes with his refusing a crown or a court. I really believe, from the histories, he honestly believed he had a mission, and the normal trappings of power, including vengence on one's enemies, were simply irrelevant to him. Thoughts? old windy bear 00:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice! Kirill Lokshin 00:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Loks Thank you very much! I will continue to source and link it, but I believe it is greatly improved, the historial ambiguities and inaccuracies removed, and better explanations for the macrohistorical events, such as Jochi's final estrangement from his father and brothers, are in place. I also added all my references, and of course sourced and linked, and will add more. Where do you need me next? It is an honor to work with you, and I am at your disposal. old windy bear 02:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Oldwindybear, I am one of the admins regarding the case. I can say that it has been returned inconclusive, so neither you or Stillstudying will be blocked. A request for checkuser was discussed between me and Dijxtra, and decided not to go ahead with it. If you need further help, do not hesitate to contact me or Dijxtra. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 12:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ilo-Lima|^{(talk) Thank you for your courtesy in letting me know, and while I wince at the inconclusiveness - who wants a shadow when you are innocent and check/user can be used to ascertain the truth? - I believe yourself and Dijxtra fair admins, and I told him I would abide by your judgement, and so I will. I would have rather been conclusively cleared, but I understand from talking with another admin, that check/user simply cannot be used in all cases, it has to be one of importance -here the so called puppet did not even influence the article, I have a huge volume of work you doubtless looked at, some disputed, and no sock puppet charges, (why only use one in one case, if you are arguing other issues!) and finally, the lack of any real evidence. I would have liked to have been cleared, especially since it seems to have driven an innocent contributor from wikipedia. I donate about 20 hours a week researching and editing, because I truly believe wikipedia has the potential to become the greatest free repository of knowledge in history, accessable to the most people, and I want to do my part. I deeply regret that someone's personal animus towards me apparantly has driven an innocent contributor out, and denied wikipedia that person's contributions. But I understand and accept your decision. Thanks for letting me know.old windy bear 16:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)} [reply]

Hey Old windy bear, I think you may be interested in reading his latest on his talk page and my "vandalism" page. It seems we may have been unsucessful in keeping him. Could you express your sentiments as well on his talk page in one last effort to keep him around? --Charlie^{(@CIRL | talk)} 15:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess he may be sticking around after all. I'm glad --Charlie^{(@CIRL | talk)} 17:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

talk I am adding a statement of support, which I was reluctant to do before, least my pal MyRepeatedNastyAttacks make something else out of it, and discourage this new contributor even more. But you deserve the credit for stepping in, and I am glad. I do admit to wincing when I read he thinks I cannot say anything in less than 10,000 words or whatever the exact sentence was, lol! (of course, if you read my postings, he is right, darn it! I never said in one word what i could in one hundred!)

Still, he should stay. And yes, I think most people saw what you did, that I am NOT him, and it is obvious to anyone who looks. THANKS though for coming through and convincing a new contributor that wikipedia is really bout people like you, not people like MyTwoCents, who I am hoping to stop in mediation from doing this sort of thing.old windy bear 19:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, sorry it's taken me some time to get back to you; I've been in and out a lot, and was gone all weekend.

Having read over your comments on RfM, and looked into it a bit, I don't think the matter is right for mediation; we can only intervene when both sides are willing to agree, and we tend to deal with issues of article content, rather than user conduct. I'm going to copy your comments across to ANI and see if someone more familiar with the situation can't look into it. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 06:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Essjay Hi my friend. I trust you implicitly, so I endorse any decision you make. My only concern with this user is that he uses ANY tactic to bully people into endorsing POV changes. The Bonnie and Clyde article served as a great example. He could nto get his way on the talk page, so he asked for peer review. Peer review was actually great, because AndyZ taught me to finally link sources, which enormously strengthened the article, Cherry suggested we use fewer sections, but keep the facts, which we did, and AndyZ and Ewulp compiled "weasal words" which we replaced with direct quotes, to avoid subjective interpretations. Ewulp rewrote the 2nd introductory paragraph, after I had rewritten it to have 3, she finalized it by polishing. She then polished the aftermatch section. We had a great time, and really worked well as a group to polish the article. This only enraged MyTwoCents, because he felt the article become mroe "pro" Bonnie and Clyde. Essjay, honest to God, my goal is NEVER "pro" anything, but rather to go where history and the truth takes me. At any rate, he responded with a series of virulant personal attacks, which of course ended with a phony sock puppet charge. If you read the talk page of User:Stillstudying and this one, the admins that looked at his edits, and mine, found no resembalance, and virtually no evidence linking us in any way. We both had asked for check=user to put any of this to rest, and so that the mediation committee could perhaps sancation this guy for his methods, which are atrocious, but apparantly there was so little (how about non-existent) evidence, check-user could not be justified. I had hoped mediation would stop MyTwoCents from his bullying, but again, I trust you completely, and if you say this is not right for mediation, so be it. Charlie was able to talk the new contributor out of leaving wikipedia due to MyTwoCents, and AnnH and another admin pitched in to welcome him, so I believe they prevented what was my nightmare, that someone totally innocent get caught up in MyTwoCents personal vendetta against me. ANYWAY, thanks for looking at it, you are a good person - I was asked, if you look at this talk page, to leave a message for stillstudying to encourage him to stay, and one of the people I told him are the real HEART of wikipedia, what is really about, is you. Not the bullies or vandals, but people like you, (and i hope me a little too, i spend about 15-20 hours a week working on history projects for this site, trying to help make it the best on the web, please read my rewrite of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasion_of_Central_Asia for the military committee!) but the heart is people like you, trying to make this the greatest free repository of knowledge EVER, accessable to the world. Look to you, not to bullies. ANYWAY, thanks again.old windy bear 10:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The

]

Touring tours

Hi, thanks for the feedback about the

]

]

Thanks again for your feedback. I'm happier with the upper sections now, although they will still need to come along in terms of referencing. Keep in mind

WP:NOR. We need to show how the reams of assertions in this article are the views of citable authorities, rather than the (educated but probably not valid in the encyclopedic sense) views of Oldwindybear et al. However, the biggest part of the project remains the lower half, where sourcing is only one small part of the problem. I made a small effort to remove a bit of text. The wider implications of the battle are important, but the level of detail about Constantinople and the subsequent Muslim invasions, as well as the bit about the succession in Aquitaine, is just too much. There should either be subarticles or that stuff should be pasted into existing articles about subsequent Martel campaigns. I gather there are already some other pages about him, but I haven't really looked. I will continue to redact as I find the time. However, this article has the bones of a real featured article, if we can pare it down and get the citations right. Kaisershatner 14:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Kaisershatner I think you are doing a great job, and please believe, the history is not oldwindybear, but honest to God citations, (which are easily enough checked, many, like Poke, Wallace, Watson, Gibbons and Creasy are online!) I think you are right on the implications - we have to find a balance, (or you will), with putting this in macrohistorical perspective, because it did effect later campaigns, and most contemporary historians concede it was very much of macrohistorical importance in stopping Islamic expansion into the remainder of the old Western Roman Empire while they had every advantage of technology, (the strirrup) and the weaponry, the bow-carrying horsemen and heavy mailed cavalry the Muslims had actually stolen from the Sassanid warrior caste. I also believe, in reading the Arabic texts of the time, that it was a stunning psychological blow that the Caliphate did not fully recover from before the Battle of Zab sundered it forever. In that sense especially this Battle really was pivotal in both stopping what should have been an unstoppable army, equipping Martel for his later campaigns, (because he literally used the dead cavalry of his foe to outfit the first Carolingian heavy cavalry!) and making the Carolingians the defenders of Christianity after Martel himself had literally almost been excommunicated for using church property to pay his men! If you need specific cites, other than the ones already there, I can give you page numbers on things like Antonio Santosuosso's book, I have it. But again, most of those cites are literally online. In closing thanks for your help, because the history really is solid, but it was cumbersome, and you have really made it FLOW, and I think the presentation of all viewpoints makes it WP:NPOV. THANKS! old windy bear 17:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. I know getting there was a struggle, but I do think that the give-and-take has resulted in net improvements to a very good article. It would be a pity to let vandals muck it up. -- DS1953 ^talk 00:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DS1953 It was a struggle, and I am sorry to say I did not always handle the argument as wikipedia well as I should have, lol - the horrible way Katefan0 was driven from wikipedia has made me realize the necessity to take a better tone with everyone, and truly work with others. ANYWAY, in the end, all of us pulled together, and I think you are right, we ended up with a VERY good article, and your effort to protect the hard-earned consensus is VERY VERY MUCH APPRECIATED. old windy bear 21:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

old windy bear I'm glad the Bonnie & Clyde edits were satisfactory -- working on this article has been a very positive experience. I took a look at some of your work in the military history project as you suggested, and I'll be glad to tweak a few sentences where it seems helpful. Here's hoping that you'll be contributing to WP for many more years as you're one of the workhorses here and you bring a mountain of knowledge along. Ewulp 02:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ewulp What a nice thing to say! Thank you! I was delighted to see you over on the military side, because you are quite simply the best editing writer I have worked with. Another editor has been helping me over there also - as you know, my great weakness is a tendency to pack too much information in, making the article too long, but I was truly delighted to see you, because you are the best in the game, and will improve things greatly.

On Bonnie and Clyde, I am obviously glad that you were able to edit it in a way that everyone could live with, and improve the article at the same time. That was a 2-fer. Great edits, end of controversy. I usually spend considerable time researching these articles before working on them, but again, knowledge is not enough - it has to flow, which is your specialty! Thanks as always for the help! It is a great pleasure working with you! old windy bear 10:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The

]

Aetius

I am really, really tired about this stuff ( because of many protest and needing to say why I have writen that ). Now I will say that point to point:

• 1) You know that Boniface has invited Vandals in Africa but Carthago has fallen 7 years after his death in time of Aetius !! You can say or think what you want but in that 7 years Aetius has have more that enough time to protect Africa. He has choosen not to do so !! He is guilty.
• 2) If I do not make mistake in Gibbon book has been that Attalus has refused to give ships to Visigoth for they coming in Africa. In first opportunity after Aetius death emperors Majorian, Anthemius and Leo has started or tried to start liberation of Africa. Have they make mistake or Aetius ? Yes they have lost but only because Carthago has fallen in time of Aetius!!
• 3) Gibbon is saying that Roman Empire has fallen because of barbarian soldiers and for that Aetius is not guilty. Sorry for mistake but Roman Empire has fallen because Vandals has been in control of Africa. Example for that is Byzantium which has barbarian soldiers ( Alans )in control of state 440 - 470 but they have been defeated because they on any other tribe has not been allowed to go in great numbers on other coast ( from Europe to Asia or Africa )and stay there.
• 4) We can say what we want but until time West Roman Empire has Africa he has opportunity to survive. This will be Empire without Britain, Galia and Hispania but Africa ( and Sardinia and Corsica ) with Italy ( and Sicilia ) and Illiricum but this will be still Empire with help of Constantinople. You can never forget that Byzantium has many, many times send soldiers ( from 408 - 474 )or denars with hope of West Roman Empire stabilization.
• 5) My last point is that Odoacer has been Roman soldier which after taking power has not created new emperor only because then Empire has been only province of Italy. What is point of creating Emperor without benefit of ruling other part of Empire. There are only problems with possible batlle against new emperor which will want to take Odoacer power. If Africa has been under Empire control ( Barbarians has been without ships. New invasion has not been possible ) Odoacer will be emperor regent similar to Ricimer and not destroyer of Empire.

Simple speaking Africa has been desperately needed for Empire to survive, but Aetius ( not Boniface )has given this province to Vandals. I will put this text on on discussion part of Aetius article.rjecina 30.06.2006

rjecina You unfortunately are stating your own conclusions, not those of historians, and they will have to be deleted, no matter how sound or unsound they are, wikeipedia does not allow original research or conclusions. You must cite specific historians saying Aetius lost Africa, or Aetius paved the way for the downfall by reactionary stances, or those comments will be struck, sorry. I could debate your conclusions, but I neither have to, nor want to. You have failed to cite ONE historian that names Aetius as a reactionary who lost Africa, and deliberately failed to rebuild - because it was already gone - the Roman Navy in the west. Gibbon considers Aetius the last of the great Romans, and even Bury does not label him a reactionary. You need to come up with sources, or those comments will be deleted as original research and your own conclusions. Please understand you simply cannot make those conclusions on your own. It violates every tenet of wikipedia policy. old windy bear 17:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want truth I have only now been looking that you have give me answer in your discussion page ( before I have write answer on Aetius page ). Do not be offended but Creasy book The Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World is typical west european way to look things. Greatest part of this battles are historical not really important, or are having less importance of what is writen. For example how this book is writen ( and European myth ) take only Battle of Tours in 732. Yes this battle is important but less of Constantinople siege between 674 and 678. Waterloo on other hand is not important. I will now stop write our discusson. You are free to work with Aetius what you want. rjecina 23:40 CET 30.06.2006

rjecina Of course each culture has it's biases, but it is interesting that you mention the seige of Constandinople from 674-678, because the Arabic and Islamic histories place much less importance on that seige than the seige of 718, which featured the largest fleet ever assembled, plus the land army, commanded by the brother of the Caliph. With all respect, you assume a European bias in my history, but that is not the case. Tours is of macrohistorical importance because it marked the clear defeat of an army which should have prevailed, which had they, would have overwhelmed Christian Europe and ended the effective growth of the Catholic Church. But seige of the Mother of Cities in 718 was at least equally important, and far more macrohistorically important than the failure of the first seige which you cite, which merely tested the land walls. I will adjust the article on Aetius not because you are necessarily wrong in your conclusions, but because no reputable historian, east or west, has concluded as you write, and we cannot assert original research. old windy bear 22:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OldWindyBear,

You've done a damn good job helping to edit the Charles Martel Page, I posted on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Charles_Martel that I was curious where the Norwich sources were. well I checked out his whole series from the library and was curious where - > "" John Julius Norwich, the most widely-read authority on the Byzantine Empire, says the Franks halting Muslim Expansion at Tours literally preserved Christianity as we know it."" is found.

thanks in advance!

User:Urbana I have the whole series also at home. There are four books on Bzyantium, 3 in the major series, ("Byzantium: The Early Centuries, Byzantium: The Apogee and Byzantium: The Decline and Fall.") plus a truncated book which sums them up, and of course his works on Venice, and the Normans. I am sure you will have a fine time reading them, and locating his conclusions yourself. I would suggest you read his books on Venice and the Normans also, if you want what you are seeking. You might note that we have gone to other exact quotations on the Battle, rather than paraphrase Norwich. But I am sure you will see why when you read his works in their entirity. He is one of the more readable historians, and you will enjoy all his works. old windy bear 19:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so I am guaranteed to find after reading his 3 book series his quotes on Charles Martel? Thank you again for your help.

Oh, and, there is also some about Martel/Tours in his books on Venice and the Normans?

Urbana 20:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Urbana First, I guarantee nothing except death and taxes. Secondly, I don't remember listing Norwich's books as the source for his conclusions - which were not quoted, they were paraphrased, you might wish to check. Third, if you can read, we already replaced the language in question - since it was not an exact quote, and was paraphrased - with exact quotes which eliminate any controversy in language, since it was obvious where you were going with this. Did you really think you fooled anyone? That issue was settled before it became one. Best always to use EXACT quotes instead of paraphrasing when language issues emerge. We went through something similiar with the Bonnie and Clyde article, and settled it by use of exact quotes instead of paraphrasing, and did the same here before it became an issue. As far as what Norwich thinks, read and discover for yourself. It is amusing that you think it unusual that the Franks might be a part of history on the Normans and Venice, as the Carolingians were a huge part of the history of the eras both were part of. As they were of the Eastern Empire. I suggest you read, if you want to know what Norwich thought. It was obvious what you were doing with your false flattery and that issue was settled before it began, so exact language quoting was used instead of paraphrasing, which as I noted, keeps those who seek to cause difficulities with semantics without any basis to do so. (you do know what semantics are, I assume?) You might also want to check interviews he has given, articles, et al. Every single "quote" now in the article is a direct quote, with no paraphrasing, which forestalls where you were going on this. old windy bear 01:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello oldwindybear. I saw you were rewriting Flavius Aetius, and wanted to ask you a couple of questions: 1) why is Gibbon so hard on the Eastern Empire? 2) Is Norwich really worth reading on the Eastern Empire, if you have waded through Gibbon? 3) Why was there controversy on Flavius Aetius, who appeared to be pretty much the last great Roman hero? Stillstudying Max 12:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! To answer your questions:

1. Gibbon was a proud member of Imperial Britannica's elite. He viewed the world from that cultural perspective, and was rather contemptous, rightly or wrongly, of Bzyantium's morals, and tended to ignore it's incredible span in history, (an empire that lasted 11 centuries, outliving it's founding empire by almost a millinium), and it's accomplishments, (defeating a host of foes from the Vangarians to the Vandals, Islamic conquerers galore, up till when the age of cannon rendered the land walls obsolete!)

2. Norwich is definitely worth reading. His works are more populist than Gibbon, but better reading, and a far fairer perspective on Bzyantium and it's works.

3. Rightly or wrongly, some people blame Flavius Aetius for not singlehandedly resurrecting the Roman Navy, and ignore the fact he kept the totally dying Empire alive in the West pretty much single handedly for almost 30 years.

Hope that answers your questions! Take care! old windy bear 18:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear from you oldwindybear -- I took a look at the Aëtius article (learning a few things I should've paid attention to in school), & merged a number of sentences to tighten things up -- check it over & make sure I didn't lose anything important, & feel free to alter as needed. Ewulp 03:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ewulp Excellent job! It is good to hear from you also, and thanks for the help! Aetius is one of history's more interesting characters, and I certainly thank you for your kind assistance! old windy bear 09:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. He (Rex) is just trying to force original research down everybody's throat. He has never provided a source. We have. I only agreed to mediation because it is obvious where it will go, especially considering his uncivil behaviour. Finally, if we continue to source our (true) claims, there's nothing anybody (including a mediator) can do about it. Srnec 19:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Srnec Let me know if I can be of assistance. I am not the writer you are, as we both know, lol, but I am a good researcher. You are, as you always are, on sound ground historically, and having read all the postings carefully, he has, as you so aptly pointed out, provided no sourcing at all, merely conclusions of his own. I recently had to rewrite the article on Flavius Aetius for precisely the same reason. An editor had come to the interesting conclusion that Aetius had "lost" Africa by failing to rebuild the Roman Navy, and then ousting the Vandals. Given the decayed state of the west, this was a rather bizarre stance; (in fact, as you well know by that time the western Romans had virtually no military of their own, only auxillaries and foederoti). He had no sources, and only original research in which he had concluded that Aetius, as de facto ruler of the west from 432-450 should have somehow rebuilt the Navy, and retaken Africa. His conclusions were interesting, but he had NOT ONE SOURCE. This situation is quite similiar. I am actually chagrined that I missed the debate, as I have always been quite interested in the Carolingians. If I can be of assistance, let me know, as I support you 100%. Rex is not only attempting to force original research down everyone's throat, original research which contradicts all accepted histories, but doing so quite rudely to boot. Where do these people come from? old windy bear 19:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any sources which indicate that West Francia and East Francia are the states of France and Germany in their infancy and/or that they were created by the Carolingians (through the division of their empire) would support the case against Rex. Rex seems unable to comprehend that later states, such as Switzerland and the Netherlands, grew out of French and German states which already existed (though, obviously, not in the same way as the current France and Germany). He simply states the "fact" that Germany did not exist before 1871 as if that's an argument. Srnec 20:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good thing I still had your talkpage on my watchlist, othwise I would have missed this little conspiracy.

I see snerc still believes in his little France + Germany = Europe, theory ... too bad but that's that. Also you missed my point entirely.Which is: The history of Europe is not only about Germany and France, therefore it is injust to only list France and Germany as "heirs", or to give them a special position in situations were they are equal to others. Have fun!  Rex  20:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Srnec These are just the sources I happen to have at home. More will be forthcoming.

"After the treaty of Verdun ( 843) the three main parts of the (Carolingian) Empire began to shape themselves into what were later to be known as France, Italy and Germany." A Short History of Germany Page 3 of 308 by S. H. Steinberg; Macmillan, 1945;

"Nevertheless, the new states of tenth-century Europe -- France, Germany and Italy and the kingdoms of Lorraine, Burgundy and Provence, which arose from the decomposed body of the Carolingian empire -- were not merely the accidental results of the upheavals of the ninth century. Beneath the superficial uniformity imposed by the Franks, each province of the Carolingian empire its own life, its own history, its own problems and its own geographical peculiarities." The Origins of Modern GermanyPage 5 of 484 by G. Barraclough; Basil Blackwell, 1946;

"Germany's future turned upon the fact that the Carolingian Empire had disintegrated before the old tribal configuration could be erased. The ruin of the ducal dynasties had not entailed the suppression of the old stem loyalties, nor had the basic political geography of the country changed. During the ninth century the counts and margraves, who were usually Franks from Gaul, endeavored to keep alive the fiction of imperial authority in Germany. However, by the early tenth century they realized that they alone could offer adequate military protection to their vassals and the common people. With de facto power came a novel spirit of independence. The descendants of the alien counts then went about reviving the stem duchies. As dukes (Herzöge), these rulers became the embodiments of regional authority.

The position of the dukes was strengthened during the short reign of Conrad I ( 911-19), the first king of Germany." Germany in Western Civilization Page 41 of 848 by William Harvey Maehl; University of Alabama, 1979.

"The Frankish monarchy that Charlemagne founded established royal power based on military force combined with consecration by the church. Thus he had the right to appoint both the feudal and church nobility and to give them lands (fiefs). His monarchy epitomized the medieval synthesis, the interlocking of church and state. The king perceived himself as the vicar of God and equal in power to the pope. Thus he sought the acknowledgment of his vassals, but did not consider himself dependent on them for his political legitimacy. The German feudal duchies, the military regions controlled by dukes, had been created as a part of Frankish expansion to the east. They formed in the territories of the Germanic tribes that Charlemagne subdued, such as Saxony. The dukes in these regions were given fiefs by the king and established secondary dynasties in their own, that the very Saxons Charlemagne fought so viciously to subdue formed the dynasty that reestablished the German monarchy. Page 34 of 231 The History of Germany by Eleanor L. Turk; Greenwood Press, 1999;

old windy bear 20:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rex Rex, watch all you wish, you may come to my talk page if you speak civilly, otherwise, you will be deleted. If you wish to discuss history, then cite sources, as I just have. Your general incivility will not be tolerated here. On the other hand, if you wish to present a point, and source it, I am perfectly willing to listen. But opinions don't count here, yours or mine, history does, and it must be sourced. old windy bear 20:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it should be, so can someone show me an article or something in that direction which says that "Germany" and "France" solely "laid the groundwork for the French and German states"? There's no denying that other "foundations" were also laid, as it weren't only German and French territories that formed the empire of charlemagne. I happened to see a section on this very talkpage in which you Oldwindybear, say it litterally. [3]

Apart from all that, if seems you don't like my tone, well I'm not very fond of yours either.I am not a troll or a vandal and would not like to be treated as one.  Rex  20:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rex Why Rex, we don't have to like each other to treat one another with courtesy, though I don't dislike you. I don't even know you! I simply don't want the tone you struck with accusing me of participating in a conspiracy. I disagree with the stance that Germany as a country, nation-state, did not exist prior to the 19th century. (And I would maintain the sources above make clear it existed far earler, and was a direct descendant of East Francia of the Carolingian Empire) Certainly the Carolingian Empire consisted of the Low Countries as well - both Charles Martel and his grandson are revered as heroic figures there. The point is, that the Carolingian Empire gave direct birth to what is now France and Germany, as the above citations go to prove, that there was a German state as early as the 9th century. I certainly won't treat you like a vandal if you come and discuss history as you just did. Again, we do not have to like each other, though frankly, I see no point in needless acrimony over what are essentially philosophical differences. (And as previously noted, I did not like being accused of being a conspirator, and you don't like being treated like a vandal, so let us both not do either!) I prefer to discuss this as reasonable persons, and go to historians, since original research, thus our opinions, are barred by wikipedia policy. old windy bear 21:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You and I seem to have a different understanding of a German State. For me there was no Germany before 1871.However, I will of course not deny the existance of the many little German princedoms, "states", fiefs, duchies, etc. with Germans and people with German culture. This was the Holy Roman Empire, not Germany ... and this is were I apparently think different from the rest. When I read the term "medieval Germany" I do not think about a country in the middle ages, no, I think about what happened in the area of a modern country during the middle ages. That's why I object to the claim that the Netherlands are breakaways of Germany ... because for me there was no Germany, there was the Holy Roman Empire, and the holy Roman Empire wasn't Germany.

I cannot understand how one can take one entire country like Germany and effectivly say: even the farthest corner of Germany and France have more frankish herritage/foundations than their actual heartland, the low countries.  Rex  21:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rex I would equate it with the United States, (though that is not an exact comparison!). The 13 original colonies - though they had the same name - are certainly not the current United States. I realize this is not a totally valid comparison, but what I am trying to say is that the German state of today is a descendant of East Francia, and the German state which arose out of the Carolingian Empire, just as the 50 United States of today are a descendant of the 13 colonies. I don't believe the Holy Roman Empire was Germany, though certainly after Otto the Great the heart of the Empire was Germanic! Conrad, for instance, is recognized as the King of Germany, but he was not Holy Roman Emperor. I understand your point, that today's Germany is far different from medivial Germany, but I think it is a descendant. Essentially, the Carolingians were the fathers of ALL of modern Europe, with the exception of Spain. old windy bear 21:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! That's what I wanted to hear "the Carolingians were the fathers of ALL of continental modern Western Europe".Yes the article only talks about Germany and France.I mean Germany was virtually one of the last countries to become a true country, a state. I mean if that's to thank to those supposed Frankish foundations, the Carolingians weren't very good masons.  Rex  21:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rex Actually, we agree on that. The Carolingians were not good masons in that they still divided the land between all the sons, instead of settling on a single ruler. That, coupled with the vastness of the Empire, all those tribes and tongues, which depended for unity on large part on fate - Martel ruled alone, Carloman abdicated leaving Peppin to rule alone, and again, Charlemagne's brother died, leaving him to rule alone, and by the time he died, only Louis the Pious remained to rule alone, so you had 4 generations of mostly sole heirs, but a tradition that resulted in the treaty of Verdun as soon as you had multiple heirs. And that treaty split the Empire during a period it desperately needed to be united. (The Vikings, as one historian dryly noted, "Charlemagne knew them not, but his son would know them well...") I do have to say though that Christian Europe was certainly lucky to have the Carolingians reach their height during the Islamic Expansion Era reached into Europe. Well, have a good evening! I am going to lay down, I enjoyed "talking history" with you - let us not be at odds. We just proved we can discuss these issues pleasantly. Good night! old windy bear 22:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's what you get when you hold on to your old Frankish costums. In practically every other tribe the whole of the possesions passed on to one heir.The Franks dived everything.

I don't see however how the carolingian empire laid the foundations of only 2 modern states.I can't believe that, especially knowing the long road it took germany to actually become a state.  Rex  10:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rex Good morning! I will address the creation of France, Italy and Germany by the collapse of the Carolingian Empire later, (I am getting ready for work!) though Italy in particular certainly took long enough to solidify as a single state. (Germany went through phases, it became a nation in the 9th century, but lost it later on, only to redemn itself in the late 19th century, as you are well aware!) You are dead right on the Franks and their custom of adhering to the Germanic tribal practice of dividing their lands among their sons, and the frequent division, reunification and redivision of territories often resulted in murder and warfare within the leading families, and a collapse of the Empire. Sad! You take care and have a good day, and I will "talk" to you later. old windy bear 10:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to intrude on a conversation that's getting along famously without me, but I want to direclty address what I believe are Rex's misunderstandings of my position. I do not claim that "the carolingian empire laid the foundations of only 2 modern states." I claim it laid the foundations of France and Germany. These are more than just modern states. Yes, they still exist, but their origins are pre-modern and their histories show them to vastly different states territorially in the Middle Ages than they are now. Borders change over time. The Netherlands are included in "France and Germany" when we understand that they are breakaways from those two historical, political, and geographical entities. The Netherlands did not break away from the German Empire or the Federal Republic of Germany, or from the French Empire or the Fifth French Republic, but they did break from the Kingdoms of France and Germany (by then united politically with the "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation"). Thus, the statement that the Carolingian Empire gave rise to only those two states is accurate. For Italy existed as a kingdom before the Carolings and only West and East Francia (Middle Francia being subsumed in them) were Carolingian creations, created out of the

Frankish Realm of the Merovingians. Srnec 16:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Srnec Hi Srnec! Rex and I are discussing this quite pleasantly, though we still disagree on the Carolingian origin of France and Germany. I would stipulate that historians do say plainly that the Carolingian Empire gave direct birth to two states, East and West Francia, since Middle Francia, or Italy, had certainly existed previously, whereas France and Germany had not. I also think it beyond dispute historically that the Netherlands ultimately came out of what was East Francia, or Germany, since clearly Conrad was King over what is today the Netherlands, and he is unquestionably recognized as King of Germany. I think this book said it well:

"During the days of disorder which had followed the fall of Rome, (the true dark ages of history, the sixth and seventh centuries of our era,) the German tribes had been persuaded to accept the Christian religion and had recognised the Bishop of Rome as the Pope or spiritual head of the world. In the ninth century, the organising genius of Charlemagne had revived the Roman Empire and had united the greater part of western Europe into a single state. During the tenth century this empire had gone to pieces. The western part had become a separate kingdom, France. The eastern half was known as the Empire of the German nation, and the rulers of this federation of states then pretended that they were the direct heirs of Cæsar and Augustus. The Story of Mankind Pages 155-156 by Hendrik Van Loon, 1921

I think though perhaps much of this is semantics. Certainly the borders of France and Germany of the 9th Century are not that of today's France and Germany, but their origins go back to the Treaty of Verdun, and the splitting of the Carolingian Empire. old windy bear 18:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are just claiming that. You only want to include Germany and France as "heirs" or "succesors" of the Empire of Charlemagne, when I added every other nation once located in the empire they got deleted. Your excuses that other countries, like the Netherlands, just broke of from Germany is ridiculous. The Netherlands never broke of from Germany as it did not exist, also countries don't appear out of nothing. The Netherlands were recognised as an independant nation in 1648, eventhough they were independant 80 years before that, not even mentioning the origins of a dutch identity.  Rex  17:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What came out of East Francia was the Holy Roman Empire which wasn't Germany.The Netherlands were first part of Middle Francia, then they were part of Germany.The royalty of medieval western europe was mainly of Frankish descend.The dukes and counts who ruled the Dutch states were it as well. When I think of these early foundations the article speaks of, I mainly think of Frankish nobility holding together a region, I think you think the same way.Then what makes France and Germany more entitled to be mentioned than other states?  Rex  18:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I only want France and Germany mentioned because, in a historical sense, all the other states you mention are contained within the phrase "France and Germany." Rex, you're a broken record. I have tried to prove my point time and time again at various talk pages and user talk pages, but you never try to fully rebut my arguments or present arguments of your own. Secondly, you are surely aware that the first emperors were Middle Franks and Italians, not East Franks. Germany is only united politically to the Empire in the Late Middle Ages when papal coronation broke down and Burgundy and Italy had lost all royal significance. Answer one question, Rex: when did the modern nation called the Netherlands first begin to exist as an independent nation and what nation had its territory been a part of prior? Srnec 20:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When did the modern Nation of the Netherlands emerge? Officially: 1647, over 300 years before Germany would.Before that date there were Dutch states and such (like there were German states) but no real unity.

Funny thing though this is a piece from the History of the Netherlands (from the Dutch wikipedia, a featured article) "Na het verdrag van Meerssen (870) werd het middenrijk verdeeld tussen het West-Frankische Rijk, het latere Frankrijk, en het Oost-Frankische Rijk, het latere Heilige Roomse Rijk."

"After the treaty of Meerssen middle Francia was divided between West Francia, the ancestor of France, and East Francia , the later Holy Roman Empire."

Germany isn't mentioned. As it was incorporated within East Francia and later within the HRE. But again I ask, what foundations are we talking about? The ones I mentioned?  Rex  20:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I almost hate to hop into this, but here is some excerpts of history on Conrad, and Henry the Fowler, recognized as Kings of Germany, not HRE:

Conrad I, d. 918, German king (911–18). As duke of Franconia he distinguished himself by military exploits and in 911 was elected successor to Louis the Child by the Franconian, Saxon, Bavarian, and Swabian lords. Although supported by the bishops, he was unable to maintain strong central government. His reign was plagued by feuds and rebellions by the great feudal lords. Lorraine broke away and acknowledged Charles III of France; the Swabians continued warfare till Conrad's death; the duke of Bavaria, expelled, returned successfully. Conrad's most able foe was Henry the Fowler, duke of Saxony. Despite the enmity, Conrad's own deathbed advice was that Henry succeed him. Henry was elected (919) as Henry I. Conrad's failure to avert the continued Hungarian invasions and his alienation of the nobility increased provincial autonomy and almost dissolved the kingdom. [4]

Henry I or Henry the Fowler, 876?–936, German king (919–36), first of the Saxon line and father of Otto I, the first of the Holy Roman emperors. Henry succeeded his father as duke of Saxony in 912. A foe of King Conrad I, who futilely tried to subdue the rebellious Henry, he was nevertheless named (918) by Conrad as his successor. Designated king by Saxon and Franconian nobles in 919, Henry refused to be crowned by the bishops, thus maintaining his independence of the church. As king he immediately turned to restoring monarchical authority, which had been whittled away by the dukes. By 921 he had secured recognition of his royal authority from the dukes of Swabia and Bavaria. In 925 he won Lotharingia from its allegiance to France. Henry also dealt with the Magyar raids, which Conrad had failed to halt. In 924 after a Magyar invasion of Saxony, Henry arranged a nine-year truce and agreed to pay yearly tribute to the Magyars. He used this respite to introduce military reforms in Saxony and Thuringia. Saxon soldiers were trained for mounted combat, and the new efficiency of his army enabled him to take Brandenburg from the Wends. In the marches, or frontier regions, Henry built large fortresses, primarily for military purposes; however, he attracted some permanent settlers in these regions. In 933 the truce with the Magyars ended when Henry refused to pay tribute; he defeated the Magyars in a great battle at Riade, near the Unstrut River. He expanded his frontier at Danish expense in 934. Before his death Henry secured from the nobles the succession of his son as Otto I. His wife, Matilda, founded many monasteries, including Quedlinburg, where she lies buried with her husband. She is a saint of the Roman Catholic Church; her feast is Mar. 14. Encyclopedia information about Henry the Fowler The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition Copyright © 2003, Columbia University Press. Licensed from Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.

What is important about these two Kings of Germany? There was NO Holy Roman Empire during their rule, they ruled as Kings of Germany. It would be Otto the Great, Henry's son, who would restore the HRE. It seems to me this is pretty conclusive that there was a mediviel Kingdom of Germany, which was a descendant of the Carolingian Empire, which was NOT the Holy Roman Empire, and was the predecessor of today's Germany. old windy bear 20:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Henry the Fowler was the king of East Francia, the later Holy Roman Empire. This Holy Roman Empire, was not a politically stable empire, the Emperor had little control over the lands he controlled on paper. The real power laid with the Dukes, Princes and Counts of various small states. These states, under the leardship of Prussia formed Germany as we know it today. If we say that the empire of Charlemagne laid the foundation for Germany in the establishment of all these tiny states , then it is just as fair to say that countries like the Netherlands have their foundations there as well as they comprised of exactly the same "mixture".

Apart from all that ... even IF the Netherlands are a breakaway from Germany (which they are not, terminology people please) doesn't that mean they had the same foundations?  Rex  21:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Rex, I think the reason that historians consider the Netherlands to be a descendant of Germany is because of the following:

"The Netherlands belonged to the Frankish empire of Charlemagne, with its heartland in what is today Belgium and northern France, and spanning France, Germany, northern Italy and much of Western Europe. In 843, the Frankish empire was divided into three parts, giving rise to France in the west, Germany in the east and a middle empire that lay between the two. Most of the Netherlands was part of the middle empire. Later this middle empire was split: most of the Dutch-speaking lands became a part of Germany...From 800 AD to 1000 AD, the Low Countries suffered considerably from Viking raids (one of which destroyed the wealthy city of Dorestad). Most of the Netherlands was occupied by the Vikings from 850 to 920. This was about the same time that France and Germany were fighting for supremacy over the middle empire. The Vikings wanted to restore the Frisian kingdom which they had lost 150 years earlier to the Franks. Resistance to the Vikings, if any, came from local nobles, who gained in stature as a result. Viking supremacy ended in 920 when King Henry (whom we spoke of above, the last King of Germany before the HREm and he brought what is now the Netherlands into Germany) of Germany liberated Utrecht. The German kings and emperors dominated the Netherlands in the 10th and 11th century. Germany was called the Holy Roman Empire after the coronation of King Otto the Great as emperor...Israel, Jonathan, The Dutch Republic. Its Rise, Greatness, and Fall 1477-1806old windy bear 00:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's great and all old windy bear (Hahahaha, you should really go and speak with the people who make Dutch schoolbooks though ... If you like long discussions who'd probably end in a stalemate -joking- ) but what does this change about the foundations the charlemagne article speaks about? 08:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To grab a quotation from Old Windy Bear's source above: most of the Dutch-speaking lands became a part of Germany. Thus, we need only say "Germany" to include the Dutch-speaking lands. Germany has a larger meaning historically than it does in modern political discussion. The Carolingian Empire was not the foundation of a Dutch state, but it was of a German one, of which the Dutch lands were a part until their own statehood was achieved later. This is not to separate the Dutch from their heritage and history, but to recognise that their is no political connection. For example, Canada is solely the product, politically, of the British Empire. Indeed, it is the first-born daughter of that empire, the first dominion. It is not a foundation of France. Its culture and customs may be influenced and affected by and its heritage and history includes France, but it is not a French polity in any way. It was separated politically from France for well more than a hundred years before Confederation, just as the Dutch nation is separated by over half a century from the Carolingian Empire before its independence. Srnec 19:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I think the history is pretty clear that the following is true:

• Italy, under the Roman rule, existed as a political entity before the Carolingian Empire;
• France and Germany did not, but came directly out of the Carolingian Realm;
• The Netherlands were mostly a part of the German state after the collapse of the Carolingian Empire, when Henry the Fowler, King of the Germans, brought most of the present day Netherlands into the German Kingdom.
• The Netherlands subsequently gained their independance from Germany, which by then was not a Kingdom, but divided into a number of principalities, which were nominally under the HRE;
• Thus, the Carolingian Empire gave birth directly only to two modern states, Germany and France.old windy bear 19:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that this whole history is very complex, especially feudal Germany, as it comprised of many states and the king had virtually no real power. So I really wonder if it is apt to say that really was Germany.When I think of Germany I see a truly unified state, while the king of east francia was really a figure head of many smaller political entities. It was an empire ... and the one thing that all empires have and had in common is that they housed many different people and ethnicities. I dissagree with Srnec, because no matter what, in essence the Netherlands the Netherlands followed the path that Germany eventually would follow as well.Which was forming a state from smaller states with an history in feudalism.Point is the Netherlands did it much sooner.However, these foundation lying in ultimately Frankish feudalism, are the same as those of German states.So I ask again why should only Germany and France be mentioned, as many other countries can claim the same foundations?  Rex  20:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Rex  Hey Rex, seriously, probably because only two countries are considered to have had their direct descent from the Carolingian Empire - France and the Kingdom of Germany. Certainly you are correct that Germany has gone through many permutations since that time, but it began as a national entity with the end of the Carolingian Empire, ditto for France. The low countries did not begin directly from the Carolingians. That is the reason that historically France and Germany are considered to be the only two directly descended from the Carolingian Realm. I am not diminishing your issues, but this is the accepted historical view. old windy bear 21:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rex, I think your idea of a disunited East Francia is false. The stem duchies evolved in the latter half of the ninth century and, though powerful, were no more powerful than the kingship until the Investiture Controversy had basically sapped the royal power. Certainly the Ottonian and Salian monarchs were kings in more than name. Indeed, they were truly kings of Italy, even the south, for much of the time. The Hohenstaufen struggled to keep the Empire from falling completely to pieces and, in Germany, were successful. In Italy they failed. Germany became disunited completely only with the deaths of Barbarossa and Frederick II, during whose reign it did not receive the attention which could have revived it. Thus, in the Late Middle Ages, German royal power was far weaker than its analogue in England, France, or Castile. By the end of the Middle Ages, Germany was united politically with the Holy Roman Empire. Only after the Peace of Westphalia can we begin to discard the Empire for purposes of historical discussion because the significance of the emperor was in his "fiefs." Srnec 21:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is still incorrect as the foundations are equal.Which is the matter at hand. 21:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It does not say "the Carolingians founded the Fifth French Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany". Srnec 03:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know it does not say that, otherwise I would still be reverting it at this very moment. My point is that, these much spoken of foundations are the same for Germany and for example the Netherlands.As they were once in the same empire, first East Francia and later the HRE.  Rex  09:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have accused me of falsely equating Germany and the HRE, but you falsely equate East Francia with the same! The first emperor who was also king of East Francia was Charles the Fat, then Arnulf, and then Otto the Great. Until the latter's coronation, the emperorship was mostly an Italian dignity, not an East Frankish one. East Francia was a kingdom, commonly known as Germany, especially after the fall of the Carolingians. Srnec 16:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that does not matter in terms of foundations.Which is the subject here.  Rex  17:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old High German "diutisc"(thiudisko in Gothic) developed into English (Dutch), Netherlands (duits) and German (deutsch), German source it has an far older origin. This is a common ground of Dutch and German. So it is not quite right the Dutch left the German Empire, for it became what we call today German after the Dutch left. I found it stated nowhere that the Dutch are of German origin, rather than Germanic. "diutisc" in this context refers to the Germanic word for people. In the title of this time the Holy Roman Empire of the "diutisce" Nation was neither the modern German nor Dutch, although it is commonly translated as German. diutisc set them apart from other people with no language or culture of the same origin, these were called "Welsch" in ancient German (same origin as Welsh in English). The German dialect Plattdüütsch is still understandable for a native speaker of Dutch. It should be mentioned that back then many speakers of this language served on the Dutch warships. Wandalstouring 22:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just had the idea of an recent example, the collapse of the Soviet Union. Legal heir (taking the debts, military bases in foreign countries, nukes etc.) of the Soviet Union is the Russian Federation and none else. Wandalstouring 23:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must object to the etymologies presented by Wandalstouring. Old High German "diutisc" is not the source of "Dutch". The source of Dutch and many other Germanic languages lies with Proto-Germanic "theudo". Rex 23:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rex Hey Rex, I am going to have to study on that one. I thought the origin of the proto-German languages was with Proto-Germanic "theudo" also, so I will have to do further research. I will double check, but in this one, you are more knowledgable than I am, as I am an english speaker who has just studied it as an origin question on the Germanic languages. On the issue of the Russian Federation being the heir state of the Soviet Union, I agree, from a practical standpoint it could hardly be otherwise, given they took the vast majority of the assets of the Soviet state. On the language questions though, I will have to go back to my books, and hope you can provide some guidance. old windy bear 23:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The source points out "theodisk, diutisk" have the same origin whereas "theudo" sounds very much like a prototype of these (these describe a Germanic word for people with intertribal meaning). In the Dutch wiki the Germanic origin of Dutch is stressed, whereas the German wiki emphasises on linguistic relationship. Etymology of the word "Dutch" Wandalstouring 00:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wandalstouring Thanks - I am not in my element here, and have to depend on you. I thought "theudo" was the proper term for the proto-Germanic languages, but again, this is not my field. Here I must depend on you or Rex, because my knowledge is limited to what I have read. old windy bear 00:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean that it wasn't documented, I meant that no one ever bothered to give a source for it here. And Gibbon must have had a source, right? Where did he get it from? Adam Bishop 23:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Bishop Gibbon cites Nicephorus Bryennius as his source for the terms of the treaty between the Sultan and the Emperor, and Norwich states every chronicler of the period and the Battle, all of them, have some form of the conversation recorded. I simply agree with Norwich, that this conversation is too famous not to mention in some form. I agree with you that it should be sourced, so I used the exact wording in "Decline and Fall," as I have to say that Gibbon is good enough for me, since his citations have never been challanged. old windy bear 23:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Bishop A full account of this conversation is also preserved in Scylitzes (842, p. 700). The Sultan asked Romanus what be would have done if the Romans had won and the Turkish ruler had been captured. The emperor, without any dissimulation, replied, "I would have flogged vou to death!"But 1," said Arslan, "will not imitate you. I have been told that your Christ teaches gentleness and forgiveness of wrong. He resists the proud and gives grace to the humble." [5] Again, given the importance of this, and the many sources, it cannot be left out or deleted. But I agree with you it needed better sourcing, which I have done. old windy bear 23:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want to apologize for the way I kind of slammed into your talkpage earlier on. I should have controlled myself better, but I thought the 2 of you were having some kind of backdoor conspiracy against me.I think that we have a better understanding of eachothers motives now, and that this ought to make a fruitful discussion easier.  Rex  12:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rex Rex, there is absolutely no need to apologize, as I might have done the same. We certainly have a better understanding now, and I am enjoying discussing this with you. You are welcome here. The free exchange of differing viewpoints is essential, and we can learn from each other. old windy bear 18:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to bring your attention to the article List of German monarchs, where I have had to revert three times in the past day edits by Rex which continually obscure the subject of the article. I do this so that you can revert them if necessary. I think you will find them unacceptable edits on his part. Srnec 19:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Srnec I agree with this article and list as it is now. I will revert to maintain it if necessary. It is unfortunate when things get to this point, but the article should be what it is, a list of those generally recognized as the monarchs of Germany. old windy bear 19:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The

of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot.

Actually, we've been fiddling with the

]

Kirill Lokshin Hey Kirill! If you have a moment, you might look at Flavius Aetius, which I was asked to look at, and then rewrote, (with Ewulp's help in editing). I had to explain your basic philosophy of historical writing on wikipedia, i. e. that it does not matter what we think, original research is barred, and we have to rely on history. As to Martel, I trust your judgment, as I think you know, and am glad he was rated in the top. I understand, I think, the new scale, which measures what people perceive, (is he known in the general public, or to just military historians, et al) rather than genuine historical merit as rated by the historians. I think it probably a better measure for our purposes, frankly. In any event, he still made it, thanks and hello! I remain available for general assignment if you need me anywhere in particular, such as the Mongol Invasion of Central Asia, which actually I thought came out well. In the interim, I go where asked, or continue working on medieval or Carolingian/Roman history mainly.old windy bear 16:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work on Aetius. I wish there was an image of him, though, as the article is pretty bland without any; do you know of any that have survived, or is this something we won't be able to get our hands on?

As far as future work, there isn't really anything urgent that I know of, so it's perfectly fine for you to go with whatever topics spark your interest. We tend to need improvements across the board, after all. Kirill Lokshin 16:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Lokshin Thanks Kirill on the article, but you are dead right and we do need an image of him, and I will try to find one. (It was a shame the one posted was of Count Stilcho, ouch!) I have to give credit to Ewulp, we have sort of worked as a team on many of these articles, I do the research, and he edits it to being less wordy. I will work on the Aetius image, and unless I hear differently from you, continue pretty much working on any topic I am asked to, and the medieval and Roman/Carolingian/Bzyantine/Mongol topics across the board as you suggested. old windy bear 17:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aetius after death part is really to long. What you say that you make 1 part under name battle of Catalaunian Fields ( legacy of that battle ) and another part with name after death ( situation of Roman Empire in AD 455 ). rjecina 17:13 CET, 22 July 2006.

rjecina Greetings my friend! Excellent Idea, I will do it now, and you can give me feedback on whether or not you like the result, lol! old windy bear 18:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I've noticed that you've edited articles pertaining to the Eastern Orthodox Church. I wanted to extend an invitation to you to join the WikiProject dedicated to organizing and improving articles on the subject, which can be found at: WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy. This WikiProject was begun because a need was perceived to raise the level of quality of articles on Wikipedia which deal with the Eastern Orthodox Church.

You can find information on the project page about the WikiProject, as well as how to join and how to indicate that you are a member of the project. Additionally, you may be interested in helping out with our collaboration of the month. I hope you'll consider joining and thank you for your contributions thus far! —A.S. Damick ^{talk contribs} 18:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

talk I am honored to be asked, and accept. Please let me know what articles you feel I could be best utilized on, and I will begin working on them at once. I thank you again for asking me. old windy bear 18:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, we're still forming the WikiProject's organization, so if you'd like to help put the basic structure in place, that would be great. At the moment, I'm in the midst of an excitingly difficult wrangle over the

Diocese of Sourozh article. —A.S. Damick ^{talk contribs} 19:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

]

BTW, make sure you add your name to the member list on the project page! —A.S. Damick ^{talk contribs} 20:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

talk I have done so! Thanks again, I look forward to contributing and working with you. old windy bear 21:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 11!

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 19:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've already commented on some other nominees, so there's no real problem with general comments, in my opinion. (I intend to avoid either outright endorsements or voting in the election, however, to avoid the appearance of favoritism.) Kirill Lokshin 18:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Lokshin Thanks, that is all I am looking for, because I believe, (and who knows if it will be born out, lol!), that willingness to work in the trenches ought to count for something in this. I agree you are better off avoiding outright endorsements. I am grateful for anything positive! Take care, old windy bear 19:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Oldwindybear -- I've noticed that you've made several edits emphasizing tha J.B. Bury's opinion on events in the 5th century is not in harmony with mainstream thought. I'm puzzled about your emphasis on this matter, & wonder why you acting in a manner that appears to minimize the judgement of a man who was an esteemed professor at Cambridge. Steven Runciman, for one, was proud of his connection with Bury, & boasted at one point that he was Bury's one student. -- llywrch 02:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

llywrch Greetings! I am being very careful with my wording, as I hope you notice. I do not, by any means, try to diminish the scholarship of a great historian, but the plain fact is on the issue of the Battle of Chalons he is in a very distinct minority in not believing the battle of macrohistorical importance. Virtually EVERY other great historian is in disagreement with him. I think it vital for readers who are not students of history - which you obviously are - to understand that Bury's viewpoint on those events is a minority one, but because of his stature, is listed anyway. I regard listing his viewpoint, though it is virtually a concert of one, as a compliment to his stature, and his scholarship, rather than an attack on it. Far from minimizing his judgment, I hope it shows that his judgments were so important that though he disagreed with virtually everyone else, Herbert, Ferrill, Creasy, Gibbon, Norwich, that his viewpoint still needs presenting. Personally I believe Bury was a scholar of the first rank, and such a master that his view must be presented, though again, he is in a distinct minority. I have tried to walk a fine line, and hope that it is clear that I am not shortchanging this great scholar, quite the opposite. old windy bear 02:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to bother you with stuff like this, but in order to try and speed towards a resolution of the problems associated with the List of German monarchs (encapsulated in discussions in which you took part), I have nominated some articles for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kings of East Francia / Germany. If you don't mind, take the time and vote or comment there. Thanks. Srnec 17:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Srnec Hi buddy. I have developed a decent relationship with Rex, and I am hoping, after I examine the articles in question, that perhaps a resolution is possible. I am quite ill this afternoon, (never buy supercheap shrimp from a roadside stand, lol!), but will look at them tomorrow, and will first try to talk to Rex, and then go from there. I really hope a settlement of all these disagreements is a reasonable goal. Take care, I am off to go hold the porcelin deity while I vigorously try to rid myself of the on-sale shrimp! Moral of this: if something appears to be too good to be true, it probaly is too good to be true! old windy bear 19:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, yet another person whose existence had been unknown to me. ;-)

Your changes so far look quite good; the article definitely needs the help. My only suggestion at this point would be to start sprinkling footnotes throughout the text; their presence eventually becomes a sine qua non (for a successful

]

Kirill Lokshin Please don't laugh, but as soon as you indicated the draft was headed in the right direction, that was the next step. Whoever had originally written the article was not an english speaker, and was relaying the folk tales of the Yuan Shi. The next editor caught that, but instead of correcting it, merely added the truth as sort of a "oh well, this and that was not true," which I thought excedingly confusing for our readers. Nor did anyone section anything, it was one big jumbled argument! Now that you have indicated it is headed the right direction, I am beginning footnoting, because not only is it needed, we have at least one editor who is likely to return and dispute anything not comporting with Chinese folklore! I will have it completely footnoted in the next 48 hours. You - as usual - make a superior point though that it best to do it in the draft stage nexttime, sort of as I did with the Aetius or Mongol Invasion of Central Asia rewrites. THANKS, for taking the time to look at it, and I am glad you approve of the direction. I will polish the footnoting and a few other changing today and tomorrow, and it will be ready for me to find an image to add! Thanks again...old windy bear 10:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I quote here my email correspondence with the admin of a Dutch reenactment group. http://www.fectio.org.uk/ They have plentyful of Roman military pictures (showing tactics and late antiquity equipment!), but either some of civil life. Currently I work on the Roman military history article and will use some images there. By sharing my source members of the Classic/Antiquity task force can exploit it for their own purposes.

Hi Kurt,

You can add any of the pictures of my site that do not show a credit to a different owner, provided that you add a link to my website. Best let me know which picture you want, it's easy for me to check with the owners.

Cheers, Robert Vermaat Fectio http://www.fectio.org.uk/

   From: "kurt Scholz" <[email protected]>
   To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
   Subject: Pictures on your homepage for wikipedia
   Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 23:45:49 +0200
   >Dear ladies and gentlemen
   >
   >For the wikipedia (http://wikipedia.org) we desperately need some pictures of the Roman military, especially during the late antiquity. I currently work on this topic and your homepage is my best source of depictions. We are chronically low on any historic accurate images. It is likely that there is also an interest in other pictures of Roman civil life reenactment and your site provides plentyful. Therefore I ask you for your consent to use pictures from your site on wikipedia.org in the English, Dutch, German, French, Polish, etc. version.
   >
   >With regards
   >Yours Kurt Scholz

thanks a million! old windy bear 18:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, military longbow archers were trained to hold several (at least about 8) arrows in the air and shoot at least 12 accurate shots per minute. The time of a charge within effective range was too short to launch enough arrows directly. Every cavalry charge had to use a certain acceleration scheme to achieve optimum speed at the moment of impact (cavalry tactics). So archers created a hedge of arrows in the air to come down at the cavalry at the right spots during their charge. Timing and calculating the distances for the arrowfire were very important and the archers (mostly Welsh) were discipled and had a tight command structure. The vulnerable spots of heavy cavalry and knights were the chainmail at the thights and his horse (protected with armor).

The French army there is too big. France could at maximum mount 4000 heavy cavalry in battle. Divide the numbers and casualties with 5-10 and it makes sense. Any army with more than 10,000 men would have starved (reliable paylists of other campaigns provide this info).

In the crossbow article we pointed out the rate of fire, so calculate the crossbowmen divided by 3 and each team fires 8 shots per minute against 12 shots of a single archer. The crossbows are only skirmisher protecting the deployment of the heavy infantry. Heavy infantry was the French magic against the English longbow. They were better protected than the horses and withstood arrowfire while approaching slowly in closed formations.

Problem at Agincourt was the mud. The heavy cavalry charge failed because (slows down) and the heavy infantry approaching was handicapped in movement. So the Welsh light infantry used their secondary weapons, polearms and long warhammers to harrass the French infantry and using their quicker movement on muddy ground to attack and retreat at will. If you ever have the chance of watching a team of trained polearmfighters you will be impressed. Good night. Wandalstouring 23:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You could contribute a detail no historian mentions here: the Hun bow is a composite bow. layers of horn glued together, manufacture takes a year, usually with strong skin glue. This glue is dissolves easily in contact with water, humidity posses a great problem. Their descendants, the Hungarians, plunder all across Germany but never went to France with their composite bows.

You can make your disagreement more convenient by adding something that everybody agrees upon in the field of archery. Make some research about production and usage of composite bows, especially the Hun bow. Have fun and the wiki articles on these bows really need expansion. Wandalstouring 21:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wandalstouring I will do that, (I enjoy the field of archery, so it will be fun), and thank you. You are obviously well aware one very powerful theory among military historians for the Mongol failure to procede into the heart of Europe was that their compound bows would not have faired well in the climate. Of course, that is countered by Subutai's making detailed plans to invade all of it when he was recalled with the Princes of the Blood after the Great Khan Ogedei's death. By the way, I know you had mentioned some people had said you had been rude, but there has certainly been no rudeness in my interaction with you - you are extremely knowledgable, willing to share that knowledge, not at all condesending, and very helpful. Your help is appreciated. old windy bear 21:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never forget the Mongols knew waterresistant fishglue (reportedly used for impregnating their leatherarmor). The Huns and the Saracens used watersoluable skinglue for their horn-composite bows. Wandalstouring 22:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wandalstouring I always thought that theory (on the bows, which as you point out, were resistant to dampness) was idiotic. It is comparable to the theory that they did not invade Germany because it was hilly and more densely populated. The Russian weather did not effect their bows, nor did the Polish and Hungarian - at least as bad as western Europe's, and as for density, the hills and density of China dwarf anything found in Germany, and the Mongols had no trouble with the Middle Kingdom. The only thing that saved europe was Mongol-on-Mongol disputes, which begin after Ogedei's death. Batu was unable to turn his forces west before he himself died, and Berke Khan was far more interested in fighting Hulagu for sacking Bagdad and killing the Caliph than he was in conquering Europe, fortunately for Europe. old windy bear 23:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop, I said they knew fishglue for impregnation. The reason The Huns and Saracens used skinglue for the bows is: it was the strongest glue available. So I am not sure how far fishglue did effect things. I just wanted to point out the existence of different glues with differnt attributes. The rest needs research. Wandalstouring 23:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wandalstouring Oh, I agree, I have begun the research. Still, I never thought much of the bow theory - simply because the Russian winter is about as miserable and wet as you can get, and the Mongols operated quite well in it, also in Hungary and Poland! I think the best theory on their failure to come further west is simply the infighting that occurred after the death of Ogedei Khan. But I am researching the entire bow issue in greater detail. old windy bear 10:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the Military history of ancient Rome discussion we currently need an independent opinion. It is especially in the sections: Appraisal and Assessment of the Roman military (discussion) / Finished restructuring the article

Would be nice if you could come around. Wandalstouring 22:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wandalstouring I am honored that you would ask me, and I will do so. Thanks. old windy bear 23:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honored is good, fast is better. ;) Wandalstouring 23:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wandalstouring I will post comments by tomorrow morning. I am working through it and referencing it as I go - I have a fairly extensive library on Rome, not just Gibbon, but Norwich, Grant, Bury, et al. I will have something up by tomorrow morning. old windy bear 23:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, sounds good. Currently there is a hot dispute whether the appraissal of the Roman army should be done in a case to case study within the text or in the big aftersection currently displayed. I would highly value an opinion on this topic. Good night. Wandalstouring 00:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WandalstouringI strongly feel it should be in one large article, structured as it is, the only changes needed are fleshing out some of the sections, and citing througout. YOu are doing an excellent job. old windy bear 10:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I suppose they might matter if they're very small, but only insofar as they indicate someone who hasn't had time to adjust to Wikipedia's norms. So long as they're halfway decent—or in cases where an editor has significant experience despite a low edit count—I doubt they will make a significant difference. Kirill Lokshin 19:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Lokshin Good enough for me. I don't think they should matter as much as the ideas the person running presents. You are going to be reelected, and whoever presents good ideas should be elected to help you. If it is myself, I think you know I will try, and if I am not, why I will still help anywhere I can, as I hope you also know! old windy bear 20:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Bury discussion being ended, it has been deleted as taking up valuable space! old windy bear 00:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Oldwindybear, I'm planning to write a short article about the "war of the guelderic succession". Theres only one problem, I'm not entirely sure about the adjective form of "

". To me as a non native, "Guelderian" sounds just as right, which would you choose? Rex 16:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rex Hey Rex, for the adjective form I would chose "Guelderian." I don't think anyone will object in any case, but if they do, I believe "Guelderian" would be gramatically correct in english. old windy bear 18:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Rex 18:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rex You are certainly welcome!~ I am off to study!old windy bear 18:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good so far (with my usual comments about how nice masses of footnotes are). One obvious question: the "Mainstream theories" heading suggests that there's going to be a "Fringe theories" one as well; is that your plan? If not, it should probably be changed to something like "Theories" to avoid confusion. Kirill Lokshin 00:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Lokshin Hi my friend! I don't see how you manage to be in so many places at once, but thanks! I was planning to do two things, once I had run the idea by you; 1) put in language such as primary accepted theories, or something along that line, (suggestions are more than welcome!), and secondary, or fringe, theories. 2) I also am planning on MASSIVE footnoting and direct links to Gibbon and Bury, both of whom are on line. I have Heather, Grant, Norwich and Ward-Perkins, so page by page citations and footnoting on them won't be hard. Or we could just say "theories," and stick to the basic mainstream ones - as you are well aware, there are more than enough mainstream, Bury, Gibbon, Ward-Perkins, Heather, Grant, (who I have not even gotten started on yet!), Norwich, (ditto!) Vegetius, Pierenne, and more. Do you think just "theories of the Decline" would be better? In any event, I am planning on greatly expanding the article, and massively citing and linking. I was really astonished that they had nothing on Bury when I got there - he is really revered, as you know, as being perhaps the greatest historian of the Roman era except for perhaps Gibbon - and frankly, he is superior to Gibbon in his theories, but he does rely on Gibbon for most of his facts, since Gibbon was the consumate "resource from primary sources" historian. old windy bear 01:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe have a general "Theories" header with one of the sub-headings being something like "Fringe theories"? I suppose it depends on how many fringe theories there are, and hence how many sub-sections they should be split into. In any case, please feel free to do whatever you think is most appropriate there. Kirill Lokshin 01:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Lokshin Thanks! I have changed it to "Theories about the decline and fall of the Roman Empire" and we will see how it looks once I have fleshed out the mainstream theories - heck, once that is completed, with citing and links, we may decide that is sufficient. Every generation comes up with theories on Rome and it's decline and fall, so we almost have to pick and chose. I will work on the theorists we discussed earlier, and when their work is cited and linked, ask you to look again, and then we can make a decision on whether or not to include less prestigious theorists. Truthfully, the article will be fairly lengthy once the mainstream great theorists are discussed adequately. Thanks again for the guidance. old windy bear 02:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you can get some well-sourced numbers, that would be great. It's actually quite common for firearms; see Jarmann M1884#Comparison with contemporary rifles, for example. Kirill Lokshin 18:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Lokshin Greetings my friend! I am planning on madly sourcing the "Decline" article this weekend, and then will get with Wandalstouring and see about putting together a REALLY well sourced article with the kind of comparison box you referred me to --Jarmann M1884#Comparison with contemporary rifles . I think it would really add to our military history section, since bows were central to warfare all the way up to the last century. Also, I am finishing research on an article in Rex's project on the low countries and their role in the wars of the HRE that I think you will find interesting. Thanks as always for your incredibly fast response! old windy bear 19:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will select seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of eleven candidates. Please vote here by August 26!

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 12:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yuan_Dynasty#funny_statements We are discussing once again the casualties of the Mongol assaults. I do want to know which source (from behind the moon) lists 90%-50% of total population of a country dead after a Mongol assault(I strongly suspect the alternative history book "What if" as source for these claims). This does not correspond to any other cruel war like the

]

Wandalstouring I have never heard of 50-90% of a country's population being killed by the Mongols. Probably the worst percentage was the Caliphate after the sack of Bagdad, and The Mongol Warlords lists up to 800,000 killed at Bagdad. The book The Mamluk-Ilkhanate War also lists between 200-800,000 dead at Bagdad, which might have been 20-40% of the total population - but there is no way of verifying those numbers! No one has a remote clue as to the losses in China - but there is no way they were 50-90% of the population! old windy bear 21:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

old windy bear that is the reason I have decided to stick to this like a sleuthhound and find out how it appears several times on wikipedia. Back to the roots. do you have any decent book listing some Mongol casualties? Wandalstouring 22:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wandalstouring Yes, The Mongol Warlords and I will start looking tonight, and get you some figures this evening. Another good source I can get tomorrow from the library is The History of the Mongol Conquests . I will help you on this. old windy bear 22:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wandalstouring The Mongol Warlords talks more about Hulagu's tactics of terror in the Middle East than Ghenghis Khan's in his campaigns, and gives no definitive numbers, other than the estimate that up to 800,000 may have been butchered at the fall of Bagdad. Certainly the slain were appalling in the Chinese campaigns, but nowhere near 50%, let alone 90%. Whoever is giving those numbers should be required to cite sources. I am getting The History of the Mongol Conquests from the library tomorrow, and will see if it has more definitive causality numbers, but I doubt it will. old windy bear 20:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is I once started questioning these numbers, then I deleted them, but they return and it is hard to argue with unregistered users. Footnotes are the only option to silence such nonsense. Wandalstouring 21:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wandalstouring Okay, I will concentrate on getting the most accurate casualty figures available, and source the hell out of them. We will use the figures out of The History of the Mongol Conquests since they are pretty much accepted. I will have them for you by tomorrow night, and that will put an end to the unnamed persons and their inflated numbers. I had this same problem with the Carolingian wars, with claims of huge armies the countryside could not possibly have supported. old windy bear 21:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My handle means many different things about me, including my interest in Army ABN (such as the 101st), but no, I never served in it. I have a friend in training there now (but he's not attached to any units there), I've known friends that were in it, and my favorite doctor transferred to the 101st (the dirty rat!). But otherwise, that's it. Sorry! --ScreaminEagle 00:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ScreaminEagle Thanks for responding - I was just curious, I was in the paratroopers during nam, and my son is presently with the 101rst in Bagdad. I guess you and I at the least share an interest in ABN! Take care! old windy bear 00:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching all the "it's" (which should have been "its" in the article) - I felt chagrined, but glad you caught them. Thanks! old windy bear 00:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I fix hundreds of "it's", "her's", etc, on Wikipedia every week, so don't feel embarrassed! You're in good company. :) Happy editing! --Firsfron of Ronchester 17:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi OldWindyBear -- Your suggestion is quite the compliment! However at the moment I'm having trouble finding the time to devote as much attention to Wikipedia as I'd like. If I were to take on this responsibility I'd end up not only promising far more than I know I could deliver, but likely accomplishing far less than I could. On the other hand, would you be interested in the position? -- llywrch 00:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

llywrch Actually, I am running for one of the six assistant positions, but would have felt a lot better if you had taken one of them! You have a tremendous amount of knowledge and experience, and are very good at working with a wide vaiety of people. I like to think I will be okay at one of the positions if I get it, but you would have been better. old windy bear 00:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll do fine. If you would like my advice or opinions on any matters, feel free to contact me. -- llywrch 03:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just thinking of you! Though I'dd say hello to old connections from which I learned a lot. Cheers Hope your summer is going good! --CyclePat 01:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]} Hey my friend! It is great to hear from you, I hope you are doing well! Hope you are back to stay! old windy bear 02:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None is needed. :) -- Миборовский 05:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ский I appreciate it - I did not mean to offend. I misunderstood your kidding for something else. When I went and read your talk page, it was obvious it was humor, and I felt bad. I don't have to tell you a lot of people (including you, evidently!) have worked very hard on this project. Thanks for your understanding. I don't like to offend good people for no reason, and you are one of the good guys. I hope to be able to work with you in the future. old windy bear 10:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, it's no problem at all. -- Миборовский 18:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ский I appreciate your being so understanding. I am running for assistant coordinator - if I win, and if I can translate that into a sucessful role in helping the program, I need the help of editors like yourself! Thanks! old windy bear 21:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what about your connections who could translate m(commented translation some ancient Greek? Wandalstouring 02:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wandalstouring Greetings my friend! One, I am sorry to say, wanted to be compensated, so he is out, and the other I am waiting for a reply. I have not forgotten. I was actually quite hurt that Kevin wanted to be paid - all of us here do this for the general good, not for money. I will email the other again now, and hopefully have something this weekend. old windy bear 04:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

actually if things get that difficult I will get myself a dictionnary and try. It is about a few sentences and words. Wandalstouring 11:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wandalstouring Hopefully I will hear back this weekend from my second choice. I still am upset over Kevin's insistance on being paid. Oh well...old windy bear 11:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wandalstouring I have still not heard back from translator #2. I am extremely sorry, and very disappointed. I just left another email message and a message on her home and office phone(s). old windy bear 00:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got a dictionary. It works out slowly. Wandalstouring 10:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wandalstouring I am ashamed and disgusted that people who called me a friend declined to help us without compensation. I am truly sorry, and frankly, ashamed. old windy bear 21:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It gives me great pleasure to inform you that, per the result of the just-concluded election, you are now an Assistant Coordinator of the Military history WikiProject!

I would ask that you place the coordinator page on your watchlist; its talk page contains a scratch pad and discussion area that should be useful in keeping track of needed coordination work.

More generally, I'll be laying out some thoughts on potential short-term plans for the project here; you are cordially invited to comment!

Congratulations, and thank you for all of your hard work! Kirill Lokshin 00:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Lokshin I am honored, and look forward to helping in any way you feel I could be useful. old windy bear 01:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The

of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 12:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi oldwindybear

Can you take a look at the Second Punic war, before I go on and cut some sections in their content. I edited the overall structure, but I am not quite satisfied.

Greetings Wandalstouring 18:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wandalstouring Greetings my friend! I will do it tonight with pleasure! I hope this finds you well. old windy bear 19:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wandalstouring I like what you have done so far a great deal - I went back and looked, and you had a lot of work to do in this article! I personally would like to see more analysis on the impact of the battle of the Metaurus; as you know, a great many military historians date the destruction of Carthage from that moment. Had the brothers united, and Hannibal had the siege equipment to take Rome - well, all history might well be different. But that Battle has it's own article; what are your thoughts on this? But overall I think you are doing an excellent job.

old windy bear 14:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you quote me some of these historians who see the battle of Metaurus as the date of the destruction of Carthage? Would be good to counter this extreme Hannibal focus, because I want to cut him and tell more about Punic intelligence operations in Rome. Wandalstouring 14:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wandalstouring Hey my Friend, I will get to work on it at once. I iwll need a day or two for them all, but one historian I have here. Paul K. Davis, a modern historian who has Metaurus as one of the 100 Most Decisive Battles from Ancient Times to the Present, saying on page 43,

"after the Metaurus victory however, the morale boast meant that Rome could continue to note only get recruits for their army, but that the italian towns and tribes that Hannibal had so desperately tried to convince to abandon Rome would also be heartened adn remain loyal. Had Haddrubal joined with his brother, the resulting force could well have captured Rome and changed the fortunes of the Mediteranian basin."

Many people overfocus on Hannibal. I am taking nothing from his genius, but it was Metaurus that sealed his fate, and Carthage's. Davis goes on to say that this battle signaled the end of Carthage's ability to draw men and wealth from Iberia and gave that to Rome, signalling the Roman rise. I will get to work on getting you the other sources. old windy bear 14:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wandalstouring Greetings my friend! More sourcing on Hannibal and the man versus the myth. Look at the citing of the Battle of Cannae as one of the decisive battles of history, more building of the Hannibal myth. Yes, his use of envelopment was historical, and his tactical genius never more in the spotlight in slaughtering a superior army twice the size of his own. But on page 111 of "Culture and Carnage: Landmark Battles in the Rise of Western Power" Victor Davis Hanson, a military historian of the first rank, says:

"Victory brought Hannibal few new troops, whereas defeat created entire new legions for Rome."

page 109 "Hannibal's tactical genius did not result in strategic victory."

The classic historian Polybius concluded of Rome's recovery after Cannae, and it's effect on the Carthagians,

"Hannibal's pleasure in his victory in the battle was not so great as his dejection, once he saw with amazement how steady and great souled were the Romans in their deliberations as they continued on."

[6] "This defeat (Metaurus) ended any realistic chance that Hannibal would be reinforced."

Metaurus ended Hannibal's campaign in Italy, as Chris Jones said "Hannibal's hope of support in Italy was dashed as his brother's severed head was hurled into his camp by the victorious Romans." [7]

The blunt fact is that the Second Punic War was a war of attrition where a superior system beat down a superior general. And Hanson says it best: he quotes Hannibal's subordinate Maharbal:

"You know how to win a battle, Hannibal, but not how to use your victory!" old windy bear 21:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Than Hanson has not properly sourced. The quote of Maharbal only appears in Livy who presents also dubious content. Besides, Hannibal did march against Rome and Punic intelligence did try to organize an uprise in Rome. The Roman census shows, that one third of all men able to bear arms was dead after Cannae and the drain did not stop afterwards. Besides there were religious implications, because Romans, especially women started to worship Carthaginian gods in an increasingly extreme manner. Our sources are a bit limited about these problems, see "Rome and Carthage at Peace". I still try to avoid OR on Hannibal and show an overall presentation. Currently I start to wonder about the whole supply problem attributed to Hannibal. Mostr authors seem to forget, that there were at least two Punic armies operating in southern Italy, one under Hannibal (selected troops) the other under his nephew Hanno (attested to be one of the better Punic generals, recruiting Italian allies) and the citizen army of Capua operating independently. Hanno seems to have received infantry, cavalry and war elephants by his father Bomilcar (supreme commander of the Navy). So the Hannibal focus seems to put some things in the wrong light. Besides, after Cannae the conquest of Sicily was quite successful for the Punics and their allies. Somehow it looks like people seeing no trees, because there are so many woods. Wandalstouring 15:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wandalstouring I will recheck the quote attributed to Maharbal, using other sources, such as Paul Davis, or Peter Heather. I knew there was a second Punic army operating in Italy under Hannibal's nephew, who was supposed to be an extremely competant commander. A large part of the problem here is time, and the destruction of Carthage left us without the records of the Carthagians to examine as to the allegations, for instance, that they refused to resupply Hannibal. Hannibal did march on Rome, but his brother had the siege equipment, and without that, Hannibal probably had no chance to actually breach the walls and take the city. (Which goes to another reason that Davis, for instance, finds Metaurus so deadly to the Punic cause!) There is no question Cannae was a horrific disaster for Rome, but Hanson is right that they did not yield, and in the end, when Scipio Africanus took Iberia, they lacked the resources to match Rome. Both Davis and Hanson do concentrate a great deal of military analysis on the loss of Iberia, and the fact that the Punic armies were so heavily mercenary, as opposed to the Roman citizen legions. Hanson concentrated mostly on the idiotic formation that the Romans used in Cannae, where their full strength was unable to respond to the punic troop movements. He said all the room the Romans had was enough to die in. Something interesting he noted that you have talked about before, was that Hannibal's troops threw away much of their own equipment after Cannae and used Roman equipment and weapons. I will continue to research this also - I did have to laugh at your note that people see no trees due to all the woods! old windy bear 16:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you take a look at this review?

I think it needs an expert. Wandalstouring 14:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wandalstouring The article is a mess. It just make bald statements, such as the ones on the attack on Samarkand, with no sourcing at all. Do you want me to clean it up? It needs wholesale rewriting, and sourcing, instead of the present bald statements and conclusions without sourcing at all. I was working on the archery article – which do you think is more important; would you recommend I put the archery article on temporary hold, and clean up this mess on the Mongol Invasion of Central Asia article? I can do that; I have to go to the Library anyway to get some sources on the second punic war, the battle of Metaurus and Hannibal - I could pick up some additional sources on the Mongol Invasion of the Khwarezmid Empire, (I have a fair number of sources here) clean that up, and then go back to the archery article. Let me know what you would recommend. If I wait till I am done with the archery article, it will be another two weeks, whereas if I do it now, I could start on it by Thursday and be done this weekend. (ditto for demythizing Hannibal somewhat!) old windy bear 18:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, just want that it fails A-class review, rewriting can happen when you have finished your work, don't jumpstart projects.Wandalstouring 20:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wandalstouring Okay, thanks. It should fail A-class - someone has deleted most of the sources which were there, and reworded to make bald outlandish statments with no sourcing at all. I will get to it when the archery project is done. I am delighted you started me on that one, it is a lot of fun, and extremely informative. I will go ahead and get the information on Metaurus and the fact that nothing Hannibal did spelled the end of Carthage, rather it was his brother's defeat and death, and the abandoning of Iberia to Rome, that spelled the ultimate end of that empire. Hannibal has been mythed into being the sole reason for anything during the second punic war, and again, not to take from his genius, but he was not the only player on the board! To me it is fascinating that it is Metaurus which is listed in the 100 most decisive battles, not Hannibal's legendary victories, including the Battle of Cannae! old windy bear 21:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So at least my bold classification of the last chapter of this war gets some backup. Mago had some time afterwards another battle nearby and almost suceeded. It could have switched events likewise. Wandalstouring 21:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wandalstouring Your bold classification does indeed get backup, let me know when to put it in writing or I can simply feed you the information - as I already have with the Davis quote in his book, published in 1999. A lecturer at St. Mary's University at San Antonio, his book is published by Oxford Press, and he is very highly regarded in the specialized field of military history. Paul K. Davis is a senior scientist and Research Leader at RAND and a Professor of Policy Analysis in the Pardee RAND Graduate School. His research relates to strategic and defense planning, counterterrorism, military transformation, high-level decision support, advanced qualitative and quantitative methods for modeling and simulation, ballistic missile defense, and defense acquisition. His recent books, other than "100 Decisive Battles from Ancient Times to the Present" deal with capabilities-based planning, effects-based operations, model composability, and the deterrence and influence component of counterterrorism. Dr. Davis teaches graduate courses in defense planning, counter-terrorism policy, and policy analysis of strategy problems with massive uncertainty. My friend, this is a brilliant man, whose background speaks volumes~ AND, I wll find you far more. old windy bear 22:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a note for members of the Eastern Orthodox Project: Since the project's main page has been converted to a portal-style box format, each of the boxes is actually its own page (you can see the page outside its box by clicking the 'Edit' link on any often the section boxes on the project page, which takes you to the edit page for its contents). Because of this, updates to individual box contents will not necessarily show up on editors' watchlists, if you've only got the main project page watched.

In order to keep up to date with all updates to the Project and its pages, I'd recommend adding each subpage to your watchlists. These are:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Eastern_Orthodoxy - The main Project page
• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Eastern_Orthodoxy/Intro - The introduction to the Project text, in the top box
• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Eastern_Orthodoxy/Scope
  - Goals of the project text
• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Eastern_Orthodoxy/Subsections - Listing of Project sub-areas
• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Eastern_Orthodoxy/Tasks - Main listing of pages, etc., needing work
• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Eastern_Orthodoxy/Templates - Listing of Project templates
• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Eastern_Orthodoxy/Participants - Listing of members
• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Eastern_Orthodoxy/Related - Listing of areas related to Project
• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Eastern_Orthodoxy/Notes - Notes on Project

If you add all of the above pages to your watchlist, you should be informed whenever any part of the WikiProject Eastern Christianity is edited/updated. To discuss this, please see the relavent section of the Project's talk page. —Antonios Aigyptos^talk 09:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As per my own inclination, and Kirill Lokshin's suggestion, I would like to ask you if you would take a look at the current peer review for the article Third Servile War. Any feedback and suggestions for improvement would be very much appeciated, thank you :) - Vedexent 20:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vedexent I am honored by the request, and will do my best to review the article, and post suggestions as to improvement which may be needed, and am at your disposal to help, if any is needed. old windy bear 20:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aw shucks, you'll make me blush ;) Seriously though, thank you for your kind words with regards to the article. It has been a long hard struggle to get the article to where it is. I'm pleased the results seem to be acceptable :) - Vedexent 21:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vedexent You did an absolutely outstanding job. Work like that shows an incredible amount of time and energy in resourcing, and then careful writing, editing, and rewriting. You really did a superior job, and I thought your managing to convey the inability of historians to ascertain motives from a failed cause was especially first rate. old windy bear 21:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Bonnie and Clyde page is still on my watchlist and I noticed you removed the item someone added regarding the shirt Clyde wore to his death. I don't care whether the item is in or out, but here is a CNN article that discusses the purchase by "a Nevada casino" and here is a website which dicusses the collection of the Primm Valley Casino and has a photograph of the shirt on display. -- DS1953 ^talk 18:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DS1953 I appreciate your sending this information - I restored the shirt info, and sourced it with the sites you were kind enough to send. I have been monitoring this article also, and all I wanted was to make sure there was NOTHING there which was not sourced. I had posted the necessity to source it, which was all that was needed. I have restored it, using your sites as sources. Your kindness in resolving this is greatly appreciated. old windy bear 19:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've revamped the article substantially based on your input, and that of others, in the various review processes. If it wouldn't be too much trouble, I would appeciate it if you could give the article another once-over and add any further comments you might have on the changes and the article's current state to the peer review. Thank you :) - Vedexent 09:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vedexent I will do so today, and wanted to thank you again for asking me to be a part of the review. Your work is outstanding, and it is an honor to participate. old windy bear 11:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to Mongol armor. it reads rather different then what we state.You can find more links here Wandalstouring 19:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The

of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by Grafikbot - 19:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you participated in a peer review of this article, you might be interested in its current status as a Featured Article Candidate. Thanks,--Paul 13:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OWB, thank you for your review of the 1956 article. Stop back by again sometime. Istvan 07:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Istvan Thanks, that was a wonderful article, that paid tribute to heroic people in a heartbreaking attempt to be free. old windy bear 21:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The

of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Mucking alert, and I'm out of reversions. BusterD 22:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BusterD I have warned him that if he continues to delete without discussion, and engage in original research, (which is all his interpretation of what a tactic is without a historian saying the same thing) that he could be disciplined, and I will ask Kirill to look at this. I am only an Assisant Coordinator for the Military Project, but will do all I can to see this does not get out of hand. Thanks for making us aware of this. Kirill Lokshin (talk · contribs · email) are you aware of this situation? I have been working on the peer reviews, and BusterD asked me to look into the situation with General Sherman's article. We have one editor who is basically forcing his POV on everyone with constant deletion without discussion, and original research. I am now monitoring it, have notified him on the talk page of the necessity to discuss changes and not to say this is so without citing historial sources. Your stronger hand would be welcome! old windy bear 23:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User in question is not a bad fellow or even a poor editor, he just tends to leap without seeing there'll be a splash. Our FAs are precious, and I hesitated to get project leaders involved, but I saw you with very current pagespace edits so I took a chance you'd have the time to look. BusterD 00:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BusterD You made a good choice, and i looked as soon as you posted the message and saw the history quickly. He does not seem like a bad person, but on the other hand, we cannot have him unilateraly deleting statements he disagrees with, or interpreting history on his own. You know - your work is quite good - that we only print what historians say, we don't interpret. He is interpreting, and it has to stop. Lets try to talk to him first, and if that doesn't work, we will take stronger measures. Thanks for asking me to look. Anytime I can help, it is my pleasure. old windy bear 02:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work there. BusterD 18:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's not your area, and maybe that's the best reason to see if you can help. Sorry for being a pest. One user pushing POV and not listening to consensus. BusterD 17:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BusterD This appears to be a pretty clear cut case of one (or two at most) people wanting to ignore consensus. Let me see if I can get ahold of an admin who has an interest in that area, since it is outside our military project. old windy bear 18:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm trying to keep it reasonable. BusterD 19:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BusterD No problem, this is a pretty clear case of one (or again, perhaps a second) person ignoring consensus and inserting POV. I am trying to get ahold of a good admin in that area. old windy bear 19:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reported user for 3RR and reported myself for personal attack vio (I'm innocent). BusterD 21:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi oldwindybear,

There is an article,

]

Wandalstouring I agree with you, and am heading there at once. Thanks, and I hope you are okay, it has been awhile since we talked. old windy bear 13:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK guys, see this new article

]

Montanabw I agree, this seems to be a good place for us to work together. Wandalstouring since Mantanabw has created a template for us to split this article up for rewrite, why don't you divide the article into sections, and give each of us part, and lets see if we can rewrite as a team in the sandbox, and put our sections together after each is done with theirs. Let us demonstrate how differing perspectives can work together. List the sections that need writing, and give me my third. old windy bear 05:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested some changes to the splitup, this articles is about horses not cavalry units, so the split is to be made according to the use of different breeds in war. I think we can group some of them like the Andalusian and Maghreb horses etc. Wandalstouring 19:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wandalstouring I support this concept, it is a good one. Just let me know what i should work on. The article really should concentrate on the horses, not the men who rode them. old windy bear 19:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See my very long response on the

Talk:Horses in Warfare page. There are already separate articles on every horse breed under the sun, as well as for several ancient types. Just for starters see list of horse breeds. There are two sets of readers here, horse people and military enthusiasts, obviously each knows relatively little about the other. Horse people want to know what the horses DID and when, hence my outline. If you want to change it, change it--or maybe even better, create another sandbox we can play with ideas in, your structure may be better, but the solution is probably somewhere in the middle. Bottom line: if you actual content, please add it.Montanabw 06:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

]

See my comments. I haven't had the time to obtain some source material, it could be a bit before I get access to some hardcopy books I need. See also my comments on the talk pages. I really could care less about the "what is a war horse" issue, as it is just a question of semantics, but I am going to reinsert some of the historical sections, as this was the original structure created by the horse-oriented people and the historical material--in summary form-- is needed.Montanabw 22:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We are making some changes there, just take a look. Wandalstouring 19:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wandalstouring Sure, I will go do it now. Hope you are having a good day! old windy bear 19:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We did some changes now. It focuses mainly on

Roman military where an intermediate between a list, a disambiguation page and an article is written to give a brief and informed overview for any reader searching something. Wandalstouring 21:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Wandalstouring Yes, I saw the changes and approve. You were on the right track. If you had not intervened, it would have been the biggest mess in wikipedia, leaving everyone to think the entire Roman military was the old Legion. old windy bear 22:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was me who established the

roman military article for peer review now since its gone about as far as wandalstouring and I can take it without some feeback on content and direction. Cheers - PocklingtonDan 12:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

]

Hi oldwindybear (great name by the way!), no need for an apology, and I don't want to play down wandaltouring's role either - I would definitely agree that wandalstouring has been invaluable to date - between the pair of us we've really brought the article a long way in a short time I feel. I'm glad you'll be contributing to the peer review, it will be good to get some perspective and hear other's views on the article before it is developed any further. Look forward to reading your comments later. Cheers! - PocklingtonDan 22:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PocklingtonDan Greetings again! I did owe you an apology - I like to see people who put hard work into an article recognized for that work. You and wandaltouring did a great job of pulling this together. i am in the process of researching a couple of things - and then will post my comments in the peer review. It is no secret to say they are mostly favorable. You both put a lot of work in, which I will note in the review also. old windy bear 23:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC) PS Thanks for the comment on my name! :)[reply]

Hehe, I do think its a great name! Thanks for the forthcoming peer review, don't be afraid to give it a bite of bite where it deserves it, we'll doubtless argue if we disagree with you, but its good to get as many viewpoints and proper criticisms to drive it forwards. By the way, I've proposed some changes on the discussion page of "

Roman military system" given that its contents are currently a misnomer and do not match the title. Could you comment/vote on whether you approve of the proposed action on the talk page please? Cheers - PocklingtonDan 13:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Could you also please take a look at the same sort of problem on Military history of ancient Rome - I've started a thread on the talk page but basically the article content has nothing to do with the article title. If you were able to add your opinion on the proposed changes I would be grateful. Many Thanks, PocklingtonDan 13:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

]

New book on the history of longbows

The Great Warbow - Robert Hardy and Matthew Strickland

Is a book with a new theory on the origins of the longbow. Perhaps you want to take a look. By the way, what does your work on bows do? Wandalstouring 01:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wandalstouring It is good to hear from you! How are you doing? I will take a look at the book on the history of longbows, which could help me with my project, so thanks a great deal. Mine got sort of sidetracked as I finished finals in this particular graduate program I am in. I have to grin wryly - I am finishing a graduate program for work, and I am retiring in the next couple of years, so go figure! The bow project was quite complex, as you had warned me, moreso than I had counted on, so I will get it done, but probably not till after finals, which are in two weeks. How are you doing? old windy bear 19:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite well, got a lot of stuff to read and finally someone told me why so many Jews here mistook me for a Jew. She even thought I was an Israeli with extraordinary knowledge of German (my native language!). It is all about my

uvular trill, but it sounds really stupid to me. Wandalstouring 17:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Wandalstouring I am glad to hear you are well, and reading. I bought a number of books on archery - I am finishing Edmond Burke's The History of Archery right now. I am really trying to prepare as thoroughly as I can for this project. I have read The School of Shooting (History of Archery Series) by Roger Ascham, The Book of the Longbow by Roger Elmer, Longbow by Hardy, The Medieval Archer by Jim Bradbury, and a number of good sites. I had to shake my head at the woman who explained why people thought you were Jewish. All I can say about all of that is that people are so eager to put people in this or that category. It is sad. Why not just accept people as human beings and forget the labels? You take care, and that whole thing is crazy. old windy bear 22:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it was nothing bad and people here are not treated different for being Jews or not Jews (not since 1945). As I said many Jews mistook me for one of them, so I was glad finally someone told me why (a clever girl) and I appreciated it. In other cases I was in Italy and told in Italian I could not speak Italian because I'm German and people thought I was pulling their leg because my Italian was far too good pronounced for a foreigner. A buddy of mine gets frequently mistaken for a Turk or Italian because he is darker skinned. They have the habit of greating each other very friendly in their native tongue. So basically we laugh about such things and don't forget this is Europe. It is quite different in respect to ethnic identity from the Melting Pot of Nations. Wandalstouring 03:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wandalstouring Oh yes, the racism in the melting pot is the world's worst, probably. My brother served in Germany for 4 years in the 1980's, and loved it. My son is getting ready to go to Germany for 3 years with the army. He is really looking forward to living in a civilized country where you can go to the subway without risk of being killed, lol. (in Baltimore, 3 weeks ago, a 17 year old girl coming home from work on the subway was stabbed to death over her cellphone) I have long considered, being Irish-American, retiring to Ireland. old windy bear 00:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The

of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Battle of Khe Sanh has an A-class review running and it is critized for only presenting from the US POV. Do you happen to have some knowledge on the topic or what could probably help more: some connections. Vietnam has a tourist industry for visiting the former battle sites, usually with former participants of the conflict as guides. Perhaps some of your Vietnam veteran buddies went back as tourists and know how we can retrieve some Vietnamese info (simple soldiers stories, info from guided tours, etc.). Wandalstouring 03:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wandalstouring I myself have not been to Vietnam since my war years. But I do know a couple of vets who have, and will ask them about their experiences, and see if they can provide perhaps a more balanced perspective. old windy bear 03:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wandalstouring I have a close friend who fought in Nam in 1967-68, and went back in 2002. He has agreed to look at the article and give me some private input, which I can pass by email to you -is that okay? Two others flatly refused, saying the memories are still too painful. I sort of share that feeling. Would you be interested in the emails if I forwarded them to you? He doesn't want to post something, but is willing to write an email, which I can forward to you, and you can take anything out of it you wish, and post it, as long as you leave his name out, though he is willing to have the unit he served in mentioned. old windy bear 02:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OWB, take a look at my comments in both articles, if you would. You raised the same issue back a while ago, but both articles (and certainly, countless more) should be cleaned up. Wanted to get your thoughts, because I'm tempted to start making changes...--Jonashart 20:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jonashart You raised an excellent point - let us debate the issue for a day or two, and see if we can raise consensus. Personally I would rather label them "Umayyad" vs. the "Franks and their allies." Martel's army was heavily Frankish, with a few Germanic allies, and what was left of Eudes army. I have changed it from Arab or Moor time and again, as the Umayyad army was a vast mixture of peoples. Thoughts?old windy bear 21:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OWB, just saw your changes to BOT...EXCELLENT! Don't have time to read thru it with a keen eye at the moment, but i appreciate your efforts. Hopefully, I'll get a better look tomorrow. Good stuff!!--Jonashart 00:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jonashart THANKS! I did not get a chance to finish completely - I am having computer troubles tonight, so will finish tomorrow afternoon. But you were dead right that this needed to be dealt with, and I am in the process of doing so. I will finish up tomorrow, and then you give me a verdict on what you think! old windy bear 01:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're a champ! This is really a good, smart step. I will reread both, just to back you up and will keep you posted. Jeesh, now gets me thinking I should start looking around for more of this. Big cheers to you.--Jonashart 02:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jonashart THANKS my friend - you have no idea how much your support means. I have been fighting this battle for almost a year by myself, so the support is truly appreciated. I am sure you have read the histories, so you know I have argued that applying the term Moor was both insulting and inaccurate, Arab merely inaccurate, and "Muslim" ignored the very corporeal reasons for Umayyad expansion, other than their claimed mandate from Islam. old windy bear 03:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got your back, pal. I will read thru all the 'discussion' and see what's what. As much as I tend to rant again 'post-modernism', the issues of language and power have proven of particular interest to me. Inaccurate language abounds, but in today's world, we can and should be smarter. And when it comes to topics like Islam, Western Europe, and war, we ought to spend the extra 5 minutes to be as smart as we can. Off the soapbox for the moment...:) Jonashart 03:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jonashart I am EXTREMELY GRATEFUL. I have been trying for some time to get the language changed in these articles, but it gets changed back. The only place where the terms "Arab" and "Muslim" are really appropriate are in the records kept. "Moor" is not appropriate in this article ANYWHERE. The Arab Chronicles were just that. (Of course, the primary Islamic historian quoted is a 13th century Moroccan - obviously not an Arab!) The army itself consisted mostly of Arab and Berber horsemen, BUT, it had a fair number of troops from throughout the Caliphate! I agree with your "soapbox," and thank you greatly for the support. I went on and worked on both articles last night to clean up the language issues - let me know what you think! Take care...old windy bear 11:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We live in a time and place where the histories of Islamdom (Hodgson) and Christendom and their interactions seem, perhaps, more poignant than ever. We owe it to ourselves to not sellout to mainstream media and be thereby content to mislabel, over-simplify, and therefore misunderstand the realities of the world, most historical and present. Let's keep talking, keep trying to improve things.--Jonashart 14:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jonashart THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU! Given the tone of the times, it would so easy for us to fall into the oversimplification of making this Chirstendom verus Islam. It was NOT that simple. As you obviously know, the Umayyads were not as much religious as they were a classic expansionist imperialist state, driven to conquer rather than deal with the horde of worsening social and religious problems within their empire. As long as they could keep successfully expanding, with the loot pouring in, they were able to hide the cracks in the monolith. Nor were the later Umayyad Caliphs exactly great examples of practicing Muslims! So to simply say they were Muslim would be grossly oversimplifying, and possibly adding to the tone of these times, with ever more hatred. Nor was Martel, for all his greatness, exactly Mr. Christian. He was on the verge of excommunication before Tours! His determination to hold the Umayyad's out of "the Great Land" (the heartland of Europe) was not a religious struggle as much as a very practical one to keep the world's foremost military power from stopping him from building what would become the Carolingian Empire. I am not saying there was not a religious component - that would be equally wrong - but as you noted, it is complex, and we do no favors to anyone to simplify and villify. Anyway, thanks a great deal for your support, and yes, let us keep trying to improve things... old windy bear 00:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, your grasp of the history far exceeds mine. Lots to learn still. But, I am teaching a course in Modern Middle Eastern History (and have been), so this stuff sticks out to me. I gave my class a quick overview of what we've been talking about and why. The best part is, they were nodding as I explained it...as if something I'd taught finally made sense! Not a bad result :) Ought we go searching for more of this?--Jonashart 04:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just looking over TBOT again, and found some more for review. Check out the following subsections: "Advance to Narbonne", "Carolingian dynasty", and "The Last Umayyad Invasions of Gaul". I've already changed a few things, but the use/implications of "Muslim" and "Islam" are questionable in these. Let me know what you think.--Jonashart 14:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Lokshin and me have developed a new toy (discussion):

External images
helms
Front Rear

Implemented in an article it can look like in

]

Wandalstouring Greetings my friend! I have been sitting here playing with it and love it. (discussion):

External images
helms
Front Rear

Preety cool, and you guys did a nice job with this! Did you get my note in the Vietnam War section? old windy bear 11:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The new template is finished now and we have some guidelines. Will write them down before it gets fully official. No, I didn't get the note on the Vietnam war. But I want to present you the next cool thing. We have a to-do list for coordinators. :P Wandalstouring 15:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The requested articles departement gets reorganized. The requests get moved to the specific taskforce. In case of error move it to a concerning task force.

• Kesig, Mongolian bodyguard unit of the Yuan Dynasty

I simply declared you the Mongolian history task force in lack of alternatives ;) Wandalstouring 11:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wandalstouring I accept with honor, and I am now the Mongolian Military History Task Force. old windy bear 22:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The

of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 23:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dryzen created a map of the

]

Greetings my friend - long time. I have been very ill, heart troubles, so sorry it took so long to answer. I think the first thing we need to do is source the map, and remove anything which is unsourced. old windy bear 23:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The

of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 21:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Military history WikiProject Distinguished Service Award upon you. Kirill Lokshin 02:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm sorry to hear that you won't be running again; you were a great help this term! Best wishes for everything—most importantly, your health—and please don't hesitate to drop by when you have a bit of time to spare; we'll always welcome anything you want to contribute. Kirill Lokshin 02:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Lokshin Kirill, the only reason I am not running is I really do feel you need someone who you can depend on on a daily basis - and right now, I just cannot. But I am available for peer reviews, or article work, or anything else you need me for. I think you have done a truly superior job with this project, and will be commenting more on that subject in the days to come. The project has to have you! It was an ENORMOUS honor working for you. You are a good guy, and one GREAT project coordiantor! And thank you for the star...old windy bear 04:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hey oldwindybear, haven't bumped into you recently, guess we've been working in different areas. I know you're not an expert on Roman military if memory serves me correctly, but I've been impressed by several of your peer reviews in the past and was wondering if you could spare some time to revies the latest article I've been working on that I am hoping to push towards featured article status eventually based on feedback from this review. Kirill Lokshin has been good enough to provide an excellent peer review already but nobody else seems to be rising to the challenge yet. The article is Campaign history of the Roman military‎, and the peer review is located here. No worries if you have too many other commitments at the moment, I fully understand that! Hope you are well - PocklingtonDan 10:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PocklingtonDan Greetings my friend. No, I am not an expert on the Roman Military - my field lay in the Carolingians and the Mongols - but I have a good working knowledge of their military from the earliest days of the Republic till the dying days of the Western Empire, on to the East. I will gladly take a look at Campaign history of the Roman military‎, and put my comments on the peer review located at here Thanks for asking me - I will begin today. old windy bear 11:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! I was sorry to see you wouldn't be re-running for a project coordinator position, but understand your reasons. All the best - PocklingtonDan 12:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 11!

Delivered by grafikbot 11:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by February 25!

Delivered by grafikbot 14:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed you hadn't been around much lately and I'm sorry to see you're not running for reelection. Whatever your health issues, I hope you're feeling better soon. Kafziel ^Talk 14:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kafziel Thank you - I went through a couple bouts of chemo, and the last one really tore me up. Between that and some previous heart issues, things were rough for a time. Perhaps in 6 months i will be better enough to return, or at least be of more use! Thanks for your kind concern! And thank you very much for being sorry I am not running for reelection. A couple of editors actually emailed me on that, and I am grateful to you, and them, for your support. Take care! old windy bear 16:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi oldwindybear, it is good to see that you are healthy enough to come around time by time. Dan seems to need some help from you, drop by at his talk page if you have the time. Wandalstouring 19:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wandalstouring I will stop by tomorrow, and see if I can help. Please feel free to call on me if I can help you this next period with the military history project. You are doing a terrific job as assistant, and it is a pleasure to help you. old windy bear 02:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Old bear! Well, some one passed and decided the discussion was "closed". As often on Wikipedia, "no consensus" was reached, which gives the guy, who obviously has his own reasons and opinions, the pretext to close the discussion and maintain the article. I will, however, continue to argue, as this is clearly an article similar, in my eye, to such things as

]

Hello

Hello Oldwindybear. I haven't said hello in a while so I figured I was long overdue. Your User/Talk pages are still on my watchlist so rest assured I think about you frequently. It looks like you are doing well and I am glad to see that. I was moved by your statement on your user page that Wikipedia could be the greatest thing on the internet since the internet itself. I think you are right about that. As always I remain your most obediant servant, Johntex\^talk 07:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC) Johntex\^{talk Thanks for saying hello, my friend, and I truly believe that wikipedia is the greatest thing since the net itself! I was an assistant coordinator on the military project for six months, and did not run for reelection this time, due to some health issues. Hopefully I will be back next time! THANK YOU for your kindness - you are one of the nicer people it has been my priviledge to meet on wiki world! old windy bear 11:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)} [reply]

• Since you're planning a complete overhaul, may I suggest examining the premise of such an article in the introduction? It should be apparent that the concept of "European civilisation" is problematic, that the practice of tying the outcomes of battles to the existence of any civilisation is problematic, and that the distinction between historical and macrohistorical is problematic, leading to a cubed product of three dimensions of problems. Sorting all that out would doubtless take up more space than creating a neutral list. Perhaps following a tack of summarizing the arguments of the primary [macro]historians in this field would be less problematic than trying to reconstruct a neutral course. The article, then, would be more about the prejudices of those historians than about our own prejudices. But anyway. Good luck with the rewrite. --Dystopos 18:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dystopos Please jump in and help us with your thoughts! Daizus has suggested any battle be discussed that at least two historians have written of as macrohistorical in their impact on Europe, and I think your thought that we MUST stick to what historians say, and contrast their findings - I think such an article is doable and would be interesting! Sure it will be hard to construct, but what the heck, if it was easy it wouldn't be fun! old windy bear 21:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The

of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 16:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

In recognition of the six monthes spent as an Assistant Coordinator of the Military History Wikiproject, I herby award you these stars. Thank you for contributing your time and effort to the project. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TomStar81 What a nice thing to do! Thank you so much! old windy bear 00:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I moved a copy of this award to my user page, which I thought was a more proper place. old windy bear 18:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kyriakos It was my pleasure to support you, I believe you will do a fine job -and if I can be of assistance in any of the projects, just let me know! old windy bear 13:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello old windy bear! Sorry for the late response on renaming of the Battles of macrohistorical importance article. I was away for a couple of days, but I see you got it done! It looks like you did it the hard way—it's simpler to click the "move" tab above the article title, which lets you rename it in one step & preserves the previous edit history. But I'm glad the new name proved acceptable, and the article is looking solid. Ewulp 01:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ewulp Thanks! more to the point, thanks to you! As usual, you came up with a reasonable solution that preserved a good article, which has really begun to take shape. We are going to add several battles - the first seige of Vienna, Manzikert, Mohacs. It really has potential! Thank you so much! it is always a HUGE pleasure working with you...please keep editing my work, by the way, I put in the research, and then you turn it into a readable article! "PS" what do you think of keeping the Creasy quote at the head of the Battle of Tours article? I thought it a great pull-in for those readers who knew nothing of the battle; Ian pitchford, who, you may remember, fought bitterly in that article claiming it was only a raid, and finally accepting the present, Class A article, claims that quote there is upsetting the balance we finally worked out. Your thoughts? I do NOT want to reopen the fighting on a really great article. But neither do I want to just give in to Ian's usual demands (he just demands, deletes to his POV without any discussion or attempt to reach consensus) I really would value your thoughts on this...old windy bear 02:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thank you for your kind words! I read that article few days ago and last night again, and it is much more promising. The intro is far from being what I personally would have expected (and what we discussed in the talk page, IIRC), but anyway it is a step forward. Adding more battles may increase article's size too much (perhaps in future each battle's interpretation on significance should be moved in a separate article), but also offers a valueable diversity and hopefully justification for a material which was proposed for deletion. The main difficulty is we do not have large overviews and each user (me, too) comes with few historians he had read and while that article is essentially an article of a large perspective (the same problem I noticed in

]

]

Hi there! Lately I had little time for Wiki and it was all consumed in some not-so-fruitful debates. I didn't forget about those articles I'll try to catch up with what was written meanwhile. Daizus 08:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The

of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 19:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

]

CyclePat I could not agree with you more, and said so at the dicussion Please let me know if you feel what I said was sufficient. I am anxious to be of service in keeping what I feel is an INVALUABLE association and process in teaching new editors how to edit, and discuss, and seek consensus. It - and you in particular -did all that for me, and more. Please let me know if what I wrote is sufficient. old windy bear 03:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the kinds words. We will see what the outcome will be. Perhaps the deletion discussion will turn into something productive for the association. What you wrote was more than sufficient it almost sent a tear down my eye. Thank you again! ;) Truly. --CyclePat 01:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CyclePat My friend, it was the plain truth. You and the association - but you in particular - taught me how to be an editor. Look at my postings these days, and you find very little controversy, and a great attempt to work with others to fashion good articles. You taught me that. THANKS! old windy bear 02:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are working on our first publication in the form of a podcast. The editor concerned with the task would like to have some more information on the Persian preparations(here) and I thought you are among our best editors for the task. And here comes our podcaster: ShakespeareFan00 (please answer on his talk page).

Btw you could really use an archieve, more than a hundred visible discussions on a talk page is a bit much. Greetings Wandalstouring 08:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Wandalstouring my friend, it is good to hear from you! I will check in on that page. Yes, this does need archiving - I have never done it, so feel free to help me, and I would be extremely grateful! It is good to hear from you! old windy bear 00:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]