kor

I read too many books. It is impossible to pick a favourite.

On msn, I have a total of 149 people in my contact list. Perhaps it's time to sort out a few, as that's only 1 away from the max

Cool Fok.nl is on number 12, I visit that site daily Seriously though, Fok has more than 70 000 registered members that actively post, and that's only on number 12. I can't really see how you can reach the top 20...

On the site it explained it, Darkangel. Apparently 80% of the people my age with about the same height (in the US) weigh more than me.

I weigh 57kg, and I'm in the 20th percentile. Not unexpectedly.

It was Saint andrew who was crucified on an X cross; this is why to this day the Scottish flag has an X on it (seeing as Andrew is Scotland's patron saint).

Afaik it's not done in German nor in Dutch, however I did notice that Tim does it, but I think he's the exception rather than the rule in this case.

What famous Dutch composer? None of the great composers were Dutch, but there's quite a few pretty good Dutch composers, like Johan de Meij, who made a concert based on the Lord of the Rings (this was long before the move was made ). He made a lot of other musical pieces, too, and is really quite well known here. We have a couple of his CDs.

I work in the supermarket, it's a great place for watching people. Half a year or so ago, at our supermarket there was a presentation of coffee, the company had brought a coffee machine which was to be operated by one of their employees. At the end of the day, she stopped with the presentation and, before taking away the coffee machine, she went to the loo or something, letting the machine stand there. A colleague and myself were working on our department and saw a man walk up to the coffeemachine (which was switched off), he pressed the button to get a cup of coffee, but nothing happened, as it was off. He stood there waiting for his coffee for some time, felt the machine to see if it was warm and working, held his ear to it to hear if it was on, etc. Eventually he went away, then 5 mins later reappeared to see if his coffee was ready We had a good laugh over it, without him noticing of course Yes, the supermarket is a great place to watch how people behave.

The Henry V soundtrack by Patrick Doyle. Great stuff.

I was giving him the benefit of the doubt

DA, I found both Teutoburger and Teutoberger Wald as the name given to it, but now I indeed noticed that Teuteburger is also used; though I only found it associated with the modern day area, not with the German battle. The general name given to the battle in English seems to be Teutoburger (for example the standardwork A guide to the battlefields of Europe does so); as Teuteburger Wald appeared in none of my English sources and in only a few German sources (apart from the modern day place name) I chose not to use it. Three different possible names, and only one battle Complicated

It's the Teutoberger Wald (Forest), Paal.

I'd make a movie based on the Guerre de Hollande in which Louis XIV tried to conquer the Netherlands. I'd probably make a mini-series of it, though, as I want to tell it all I'd centre on the political games of the participants. There was no one who played fair back then, but Charles II deserves a special mention as a real traitor and breaker of promises.

I think CelticHeart didn't write the article at all; he just collected it and showed it to show the "Trojan legend", forgetting that it wasn't merely a description of the legend but also an argument in favour of creation. Anyway, expect an article by me soon

Wow, that's exactly the same article How did it get there?

Very nice work, I especially like the shield

You mean a personal Druidic name? I'll look into it. Using a saint would be a bit incorrect since these fervently battled the druidic practices. There's a few possible druidic names that might be used, the most obvious being Taliesin. I'll look into it.

There is a difference between acknowledging the cultural background and value of legends, and taking them as accurate descriptions of the past, what the author of the article does. Bah Wijit, now I'll have to work fast, grrr!

Thanks for backing me up, Klaas I indeed think that the author of the article took legend a little bit too literally. It should either be classified as legend or not be in a historical article section. And I am willing to write an article about Ancient Britain, I can't let all that knowledge go to waste

As the topic says, please remove the article "Ancient Britain". It appears to be not a historical article but a propaganda piece advocating creation. Of course there is nothing wrong with that but this subject has nothing to do with ancient Britain. Apart from that, the author bases his arguments on a swamp. In this post I will disprove all the main arguments he makes. Basically, the article says: After the fall of Troy, a group of Trojans moved to Britain where they established "New Troy". King Lud renamed Troy to Caer-Ludd, which was later changed into London. This is bad because it makes us forget our Trojan past. This is proven because in three medieval history books (Tysilio's Chronicle, Nennius' History of Britain, and Geoffrey of Monmouth's History of the Kings of Britain) all state this. Historians discredit Nennius and Geoffrey of Monmouth because they say that the Trojans were descended from Noah. These historians are evolutionists, and are afraid that acknowledging these sources as accurate will prove the flood and subsequently the existence of god and the truth of creation. Since the ancient Britons had no way of knowing about Noah yet still claim to descend from him, this proves he existed. Well, that's the article in brief. I've linked to the full article at the top, it's best if you'll read it along with my article to see what I mean exactly. 1. On the Trojans and Britain. There is no real, archaeological evidence to prove that some Trojans moved to Britain. It is in fact illogical, considering the following: in the ancient period cities were small. Troy was a big city for its day, 1200BC, but we cannot logically assume that it would've had more than a few thousand inhabitants. Considering the Greeks successfully captured the city and then razed it to the ground, killing whoever they came across, it is unlikely to assume that many escaped. According to the original legend Aeneas escaped with his son, father and some followers. According to the aforementioned sources Britain was quite empty when some Trojan refugees, led by Aeneas' grandson Brutus (a distinctly Roman name, not Greek/Trojan at all) reached Britain (there were giants, but no "normal" people). If we take this literally, as CelticHeart52 does, this means that all ancient Britons were Trojans. Are we to assume that a handful of refugees populated all of Britain? This is disproven by the fact of neolithic settlements and other indications of habitation by humans, long before 1000BC, the date the Trojans supposedly arrived. Nor are there any signs of a distinct change of leadership (from Ancient Briton into Trojan hands) as Geoffrey of Monmouth suggest. Besides, this does not matter; CelticHeart assumes that no people whatsoever lived in Britain before the Trojans. This is blatantly untrue. (And if it was true that the Britons descended from the Trojans, it's hardly likely to still be so; Celtic, Germanic, Norman and Flemish waves have severely changed the population). 2. Discarding CelticHeat52's statements Geoffrey is not despised and discarded because of this very ancient book. Geoffrey of Monmouth is despised because he wrote a bunch of garbled nonsense about the Kings of Britain. For example, he claims that Arthur conquered Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Gaul, etc. Because Geoffrey's description of "recent" (ie Arthurian) history is so inaccurate, we have no reason to assume that his "older" history (ie Trojan settlement) is accurate either. If Geoffrey of Monmouth had stayed a bit closer to the facts, there is more chance that he would've been somewhat believable. CelticHeart52 seems to interpret historical manuscripts in the same way he interprets the bible: taking everything literally. This is of course no problem with the bible, since it's supposed to have been the word of God. However, these historical manuscripts are written by normal "mortals". There is no reason to assume they know everything that happened. Often they wilfully changed history when they wrote it down. Nennius was living in a Christian Age; Christianity had to be spread and it had to be argumented too. By claiming that the people descended from Noah, this would "prove" (without any facts to back it up) that the Bible was true, and would make a tighter link between God and the British (which would make it easier for the British to abandon their original gods). Wrong. Nennius wrote in the 8th Century. He was a Christian. Tysilio died around 630. He became a saint for a reason (ie he was a Christian). Geoffrey of Monmouth lived in the 12the century. He was a Christian. There is no pagan source that states that the Celts descend from Noah. There is no reason to assume that there are pre-christian sources used in writing the aforementioned histories. CelticHeart52 himself says that the "ancient" book that Monmouth uses, was Tysilio's Chronicle, which is Christian in origin and therefore cannot be counted as a Pagan book (nor do I know if in Tysilio's Chronicle it mentions a link between Noah and the Britons). Not a bit of CelticHeart52's argument can remain standing. There is no reason to come to the conclusion that he came to. His article is not based on history and I'm afraid all it'll do is make the rest of your articles seem questionable, as it seems no standard is required to your articles. Or perhaps this one just slipped through. I hope so, in any case, and I hope this error can be repaired.

Cheezy, the Falchion wasn't introduced until the middle ages, so falls outside the category. The Dacian Falx probably comes closest up to 500AD. I agree with Wijit, that sword is beautiful.

Finish my finals, study history. Actually read all the books that I have. See some more of the country.

Weezul is still at HG (as Hessian) but he isn't a cherub anymore. Izzy is an Angel at HG. Bugman is online every now and then but only from internet cafés, I believe. Thawky also used to be active in the wars, he is still a cherub at HG iirc.

The pity with historical hollywood movies is that they aren't historical. The idea of making an Arthur movie based on historical fact is great, and what do they do? Mess up historical fact and do it all incorrectly. Yay! Movie I'm going to see in theatres? Nope. It appears to be the same with all other historical movies. I will see Troy though, since that's based on a legend and not history. I can mind a bit of story butchering there And though Derek Jacobi is a very good actor, I'm not sure how that Jeanne d'Arc movie will turn out. Too many I saw were horrible, especially the Messenger, which portrayed Jeanne as a psychotic unrealistic girl who looked like she was drunk.