Printable View
It is decent representative of US vs NVA engagements. Two conventional forces who stand toe to toe and duke it out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moosemanmoo
The kind of combat was the exception before the spring of 1968 and the norm after the spring of 1968.
It was fairly accurate of that specific airhead in the Ia Drang valley but does not fully show the scope of the larger battle.
Bats are flying-mice in German, as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Memento Mori
I was hoping Robert Mason would have gotten a Cameo in "We Were Soldiers".
I did have one history teacher when I was 13 or so (another coach teacher, go figure), in which we spent the whole US History class watching John Wayne films and taking tests on them. Most of those made that god awful "300" movie look like the greatest docudrama ever made. Granted, this was much more fun than the usual "read 20 pages, memorize dates and names long enough to test over them, then forget them forever" method that is the public school standard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moosemanmoo
^I wish history classes were like that instead of, "write 20 page persuasive paypa on masturbation in the middle ages."
..Wait. Didn't they fight like the Gladiator? I thought that when the Romans used Testudo formation, the barbarians tried to poke their spears inside but couldn't, then the Romans would quickly break formation and stab the surprised barbarians to death. That's what I learned in my Roman History classes. :PQuote:
Originally Posted by anubis88
Testudo Romans! That would make an awesome faction!
I take it then that i'm not the only one that has to listen to people who are like, 'well I read one paragraph on the EB unit description so that's how it was.'
Basically it annoys me when people say something like: 'This one film or whatever is completley infallible and that was how it was done.' Whatever happened to comparing sources and making a logical decision based on a wide variety of texts and other kinds of evidence?
But that would take effort!!
I know that your joking, but that is my point. Why do people try and argue something that they have practically no knowledge about? Is it just me who finds being told the facts of history by someone who has never even bothered to do a little research just a tiny bit annoying? (I'm not trying to antagonize anyone here)
And this isn't unique to the subject of history. I had to listen to someone telling me that there were cavemen walking about during the age of dinosaurs! He must have watched the flintstones and thought, Hey well it was on telly so it must be true!
I’ve come to this forum a lot, especially in the past days since 1.1 came out, but never posted before. But seeing this topic, I just had to comment and get this off my chest to people who can understand my frustration.
I’m a Classics major at my University and I needed another credit in the department, but I’ve taken most of the classes and have a busy schedule, so I signed up for the Intro to Roman History class. I know the teacher well because she is the chair of the department and in all fairness knows a lot about Archaic Greek art. That being said, here are some of the things I have had to sit through this semester in her lectures:
-Gaul was the ancient name for Britain (She said this when describing Caesar’s conquest. Not just a slip up, she had a map of Britian on her PowerPoint listed Commentarii de Bello Gallico).
-A tribunis pleblis had to be a Patrician (Clodius must have wished). She went on about how this kept the tribunes from wanting to get through land reforms.
-Augustus turned all the all the provinces with legions into one “super province” that he was governor of (I suppose a dumbed down explanation of his reforms)
-Mark Antony lost the standards to the Parthians (He was defeated by them too, I know, but she never even mentioned Crassus).
-The Dacians were part of the Roman Empire who rebelled, so Trajan conquered them.
-African Elephants were too small to carry a person.
-The Selukids traded all their lands East of Syria for their 500 elephants (I guess so she wouldn’t have to explain the messy details of what happened over there.)
-Beside all that (and much more that I can’t remember off the top of my head), she mentions anything in Seutonius, Historia Augusta, ect. as if it were fact.
She’s the chair of the classics department at a major, well-respected University. And she says such things. It drives me crazy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uticensis
You should sue and get your money back for that class. You had a reasonable expectation that it would provide accurate information and clearly the class failed to deliver.
Listen, you just have the same problem as anyone who studies a subject at a higher level. Basically you will have to listen to a lot of ignorant people who know nothing about a subject lecture you on what you do and don't know. I've encountered these kind of people for years, they don't care about facts they just want to shout you down most of the time because in their small minds it makes them right. However there are some really good tutors and people in general who are just interested in learning and getting to the truth. Not justQuote:
Originally Posted by Uticensis
trying to force their own innacurate and narrow minded opinion on you. Keep an open mind, but also keep your eyes peeled for cretins.
I know. I've had a lot of good professors. This one just drives me crazy. Not so much because I know how wrong she is: that just mildly annoys me. But what gets me really angry is the people who just accept what she says, never read primary sources, and believe these things to be true. They are essentially being lied to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnaeus Servilius
And then one day they might download EB and get engaged, come to this forum and complain, because the Romans aren't wearing Lorica Segmentata when the Romans really did, because that's what all the Roman soldiers were wearing in all the pictures their college professor showed them. And elephants with towers:dizzy2:
These people who just accept one opinion at face value do so because they either don't care or they fall into the trap that a lot of people do, which is basically: 'well they said it, I like the sound of that, I'll just argue and argue untilQuote:
Originally Posted by Uticensis
anyone with two brain cells to rub together just gives up' If they are ever put amongst genuine people who are intelligent they just show themselves up. The problem is that the ignorant people vastly outnumber the people who can have an intelligent debate. I've argued points which I have studied and debated with other students and when you prove to the ignorant people that they are wrong, they will just say something like 'I don't care anyway' or 'who cares, what's the point of studying history anyway?' With regard to your tutor, perhaps you should go over her head? I wouldn't even bother challenging her directly it would probably just get ugly.
I personally love it when everything I thought to be true is turned upside down!
I've gone up to her after class when she made some of her most outrageous blunders, and we are both polite. She knows that I'm a classics major and that I know what I'm talking about. She just goes, "oh, thanks." One day she said, "oh, you're always correcting me," in a joking manner. But I'm not. I let most of it go. And I don't say anything during class because I don't want to embarrass her.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnaeus Servilius
But again, I don't really care what she thinks, but about all the other students (mostly freshmen)who come to college naturally expecting to be taught facts in their history class, and don't know enough to realize they are not.
What use are laws where money is king?Quote:
Originally Posted by Uticensis
I can understand your frustration about the new students, in my previous post I assumed they were at the same level as you. But it is not your fault, in my view, it is best not to get to wound-up or it sucks the enjoyment out of the subject you study. It may sound selfish, but you just have to let other people sort their own problems out. (I hope that doesn't sound patronising)
I think he did the right thing, going to her and correcting her politely means that in future she won't make the same mistakes and the future students will learn more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnaeus Servilius
And if you do not care about the rest of the students, you cannot complain when they are ignorant.
That's not fair, your putting words in my mouth. I never said I didn't care about other students I just said you can't keep sorting out other peoples problems. I also never said I though what he did was wrong, I just said he shouldn't get wound up about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by alatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uticensis
Are you serious; she's the chair??? What level is this course, not that it matters if the dept chair is the instructor? Uticensis, I hope to hell this is an American University?
It's an intro level class.
I took it just because I needed a Classics class and it fit my schedule, and would be an easy A.
And yes, sadly I go to college in America. Unfortunately, the classics is a dying field here, considered a very low priorty (a teacher advised that if I want to teach, I should go to grad school for histroy because universities have esentially stopped hiring classics professors).
I suppose it wouldn't hurt to say the name of the school: I go to the University of Florida. Classics and history are not its specialty, I suppose, but it is considered one of the best public universities in the country. And, there are a lot of good teachers, and I wouldn't say this is a bad teahcer, they just have her teaching something she doesn't know anything about, and it shows.
But you said she is the chair of the classics department? Also, they all say, 'they are considered one of the best public universities in the country.' Thats just part of the game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Uticensis
Yeah, she's the chair, but she knows languages and her specialty is early Greek sculpture. Roman history is outside those areas, I suppose. The University probably just needed somebody to teach the class. It be be like me teaching Assyrian history, or something, I suppose. Its ancient history, but not something I know a heck of a lot about.
Of course no reflection on you. but my friend, that why there is a Cambridge Ancient History.
http://www.cambridge.org/uk/browse/b...jectid=1009088
Somewhat dated in some cases, but still a very good reference. I suggest she either invest in a set or spend so time in that thingy I like to call, 'the university library.'
Ha. I'm quite familiar withthe Cambridge Ancient History. Perhaps she tried to reference them but couldn't because I have volumes 12-14 checked out for my own personal use (my nerdiness knows no bounds).
But, seriously, you're right. A lot of it is her fault. She is too lazy to actually do research.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uticensis
Right, that was the little four-letter word I was looking for. And may I add, she seems too lazy to be a chair.
Indeed. Hence my complaining.
I have to admit that I am quite frankly amazed that uni professors (and chairs!!!) can make such errors (whether through lack of research or misinformation). While I understand that it may not be their speciality, surely if they're teaching it they should at least be informed, or have researched, the basics.
I'm definitely no expert, I only 'study' history as a hobby, but even I know the things Uticensis mentioned were way off.
Then again, as I'm in a completely different faculty (engineering) it could be like that at my my uni too.
On a slightly different note, I'd just like to object to Gnaeus Servilius' comments.
Funnily enough, most people tend to accept 'more knowledgeable' peoples opinions at face value. If some first-year student studying ancient history is told by the chair of the school that something happened, they'd tend to accept it. Its not their fault that they don't have all the facts. Yes they should be reading other sources and analysing and etc. etc. and if they do then they'll most likely find the discrepancy and bring it up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnaeus Servilius
However, just because somebody takes something at face value, does not make them ignorant!!!
EDIT: By your way of thinking anybody who doesn't take the time to read extensively on a subject (ie: go to uni/study) should keep their mouth shut and not have an opinion.
I'm sorry? where did I say that? You have also put words into my mouth. That's not what I said at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaius Scribonius Curio
I knew it would be a mistake posting on this forum. I should have known better.
I'm sorry for any undue offence, but it is merely a considered opinion. If it seems a touch emphatic thats because I was mildly annoyed when I first replied, and thus attempted to use my unique and frustrating (because nobody knows when I'm being serious, I don't either :dizzy2: ) sense of humour to explain myself. My point, in very crude terms, is that you sound a touch elitest, and that you may want to consider how what your writing sounds to us mere mortals who have never done any tertiary History.
EDIT: plus in case you haven't noticed, I tend to exaggerate... a lot!
Students either enter philosophy programs so they can get into law school or history programs so they can teach. The idea of Classics is not compatible with going to a university to get trained for a job, which is essentially what universities in the United States do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Uticensis
This has positives and negatives--the idea of job training as a major component of education.
For history students it is most definitely a positive.
I have worked with students from France and Germany who were supposed to be on the same level as me and they knew very little about actually doing history. Their education focused mainly on memorization where as mine focused on methods so I can do my own research--individual research is the primary learning platform for the programs I have been a part of. These guys knew their dates hands down but couldn't create a very good synthesis.
I don't know what universities they went to, and I hold out the possibility that it is just their universities which were ill-preparing them for their future professions.
This approach, when studying history, better prepares you for graduate school and the kinds of non-teaching jobs that history majors enter in to (insurance companies, government jobs--both as research-type jobs).