Kreistor wrote:Total rationalization. You can rationalize any belief about anything with logic like that.
Funny, I would argue that your approach is simple rationalisation! What I am proposing is to check the limits of proof and the rigour and applicability of the available evidence.
No, you're saying, "If it can't be proven to not have happened, then it might have happened."
Since it is impossible to disprove a negative, you get to believe anything you want. I can't prove space aliens didn't kill the knights, either, so they are equally likely to have done that as they took off their boots. Ultimately, you have no method to reject any of a thosand theories -- they put wood on their boots and skated on the mud, they sat on the mud and slid around, crawled, built daVinci helicopters and fly, strugn ropes from tree to tree and rappelled across...
See, I can do it too! Believe ANYTHING because you can't disprove it? Absurd.
The evidence against your belief is that in on-site testing, leather boots were not hampered by the mud at Agincourt. There was no motivation to remove the boots. So go ahead and believe whatever you want. It's not different from "space aliens done it" in the end.
Sorry for cutting the details. My focus here is on how we study and interpret the past, not the details of the battle itself.
Uhm, you have done nothing of the sort. You have a belief and expect it to be considered historically factual because others can't prove it didn't happen. That's not studying the past, it's inventing a new past.
We cannot interpret the past on the basis of empirical tests and experiments.
You know nothing about being a historian. It is *all* about what you can prove could be done.
There was a brief period in the ~1950s and ~1960s when history and archaeology tried to become scientific disciplines, but that was rapidly disabused.
HAHAHAHAHAHAH! It was 100% successful, but you're wrong on the dates. discovering the past through duplication of the evidence goes back to the late 1800's.
All means of studying the human past are firmly based in the arts/humanities, although this does not mean that they are not informed by the sciences.
Total BS. Re-engineering the past is done with the knowledge of modern science.
Ultimately, however, the study of the past is subjective and interpretive.
Yeah, you try to get accepted as a historian that way. Good luck with that.
The best a reconstruction, test or experiment can do is say 'this can or can't be done', not whether or not it was. To assume that because a thing was possible or even was just a 'better' alternative, that it must therefore have been done is logical fallacy.
And yet they still try, put together the devices to demonstrate their theories, and either they are accepted or not.
Kreistor wrote:simply because the records of the time were inadequate.
um... not sure what you mean here. This implies that the records should have been written with our purposes as historians in mind. textual and archaeological records are often better seen as performances, indicative of the way in which the agency of individuals represent and shape themselves, each other and their worlds.
Only one record of the battle remains. There were almost certainly others, but they simply didn't survive.
(regarding the potential bare-footedness. If the argument for that is simply that 'surely their boots would have got stuck in the mud so they must have taken them off' then I would reject that too as unsupportable by evidence. So where does that leave is: I will not accept the evidence for them taking their boots of or for leaving them on (assuming they arrived wearing boots :p ).
Like I said, if that is your logic, it could have been space aliens. And that is why historians reject your approach. Unless you can at least provide motivation for something, then no one will accept the possibility. You haven't, and you can't, because testing has shown it was unnecessary..Removing boots and making your feet vulnerable to knives and swords in the middle of a battle is simply foolish, when it gains you absolutely no mobility advantage.
If it was included in Cornwell's story, then maybe has a reason for it. I'd love to hear it. But you're not giving it.
Welcome to the discipline of history, soldier, grab a theoretical-analytical stance and fall in...
No, you and your methods fail to reject the Space Alien theory, and so are inadequate as a tool to study science or history. *You* will must never disbelieve any theory that cannot be dis-proven, no matter how absurd, or in doing so, you risk rejecting all of these pet theories.