10-09-2016, 05:33 AM
(This post was last modified: 10-09-2016, 06:00 AM by Diane.
Edit Reason: duplicated text
)
Koen,
If Irena Hanzíková - the Czech woman mentioned yesterday on Nick Pelling's site - has really has translated the whole text, then the solution may be one like the wise men and the elephant - everyone wrong, but everyone a bit right.
As a Czech language book, it could be called 'central European' but in the thirteenth century, part of the Veneto area* was under the rule of Ottokar II and that's the time and region that I posit for the final stage of development in the text and imagery before our current copy.
The first book published in Old Czech was the tale of the Trojan wars..
That would be the nicest resolution, of course. Everyone leaving with an elegant sufficiency.
* not the administrative district of that name.
David Jackson,
It is true that I was thinking mainly of armchair history enthusiasts. Some of the best and most thorough information you can get is from technical people who are 'amateurs' in the strict sense. Personally I'd trust the opinions of a long-term practical amateur, or an archaeologist specialising in that area, for information about the history of the crossbow over that offered by a historian whose subject was the history of the Angevin court.
If Irena Hanzíková - the Czech woman mentioned yesterday on Nick Pelling's site - has really has translated the whole text, then the solution may be one like the wise men and the elephant - everyone wrong, but everyone a bit right.
As a Czech language book, it could be called 'central European' but in the thirteenth century, part of the Veneto area* was under the rule of Ottokar II and that's the time and region that I posit for the final stage of development in the text and imagery before our current copy.
The first book published in Old Czech was the tale of the Trojan wars..
That would be the nicest resolution, of course. Everyone leaving with an elegant sufficiency.
* not the administrative district of that name.
David Jackson,
It is true that I was thinking mainly of armchair history enthusiasts. Some of the best and most thorough information you can get is from technical people who are 'amateurs' in the strict sense. Personally I'd trust the opinions of a long-term practical amateur, or an archaeologist specialising in that area, for information about the history of the crossbow over that offered by a historian whose subject was the history of the Angevin court.