08-06-2009, 05:05 AM
Flipping though the article, I see a beginning which is basically speculative (all the stuff about Bronze Age berzerkers and proto-Indo-European culture) plus a better-supported article on Celtic, Germanic, and Norse mad warriors. Maybe your professor chose it for the overview more than the beginning argument?
The LBA Assyrian epic is interesting because it shows that Assyrians told stories about mad warriors, but using this to argue that this fighting style was common in real life seems like a weak argument. And what happened at the end of the Bronze Age in Southwest Asia is a hard problem, and Drews' military explanation has problems (charioteers had beaten skirmishers before, and we see the Egyptians using barbarian chariot runners and dismounting their charioteers before the catastrophe).
The LBA Assyrian epic is interesting because it shows that Assyrians told stories about mad warriors, but using this to argue that this fighting style was common in real life seems like a weak argument. And what happened at the end of the Bronze Age in Southwest Asia is a hard problem, and Drews' military explanation has problems (charioteers had beaten skirmishers before, and we see the Egyptians using barbarian chariot runners and dismounting their charioteers before the catastrophe).
Nullis in verba
I have not checked this forum frequently since 2013, but I hope that these old posts have some value. I now have a blog on books, swords, and the curious things humans do with them.
I have not checked this forum frequently since 2013, but I hope that these old posts have some value. I now have a blog on books, swords, and the curious things humans do with them.
