Exactly, a case in point. With the exception of mentioning the
search engine and whether the search was an "and" or an "or" search
that is an adequate citation. It would allow me to look at exactly
the same information you did. I can compare apples to apples and see
if my conclusion is the same as yours based on the same
information. But, if I use a different search engine and get
different sources with different information, I can easily get a
different conclusion, presume I looked at your sources, and decide
you are a lousy scholar and that your "facts" were obviously made
up. This is why citations of some sort are important and need to be provided.
At 05:31 AM 7/19/2008, you wrote:
>3:00AM waiting for the police to respond to a 911 call for a neighbor
>who was robbed. I have some time and might see if I can find one of
>the sources about "gleaning" from years back -- just to help out. I
>know it related to one of the great battles of the Golden Horde --
>enter: mongol, hungary
>the name "Mohi" pops up in several references. Yup - that's it!
>read three articles on this battle including Wikipedia. Nada!
>enter: mongol, seige arrow
>quickly found three new articles (for me) on this battle, one from a
>European historian (May), one from a Bulgarian site, and one from
>China. Each has interesting info on battle tactics and arrows to
>some degree -- but not what I want. So, I can't give you a citation
>However, I learned many new things about this battle, Mongol tactics
>and the importance of archery in the battle including the use of
>seige engines to attack the enemy crossbow positions. Should I give
>a citation for these sites? None relate to the theme in question.
>Should I write them down, "just in case?" No. Why???
>Someone might later ask for a citation about the Battle of Mohi.
>Which should I give? Each of the five I reviewed tells a different
>story. To select one would deprive you of the 'knowledge' gained
>only by reading all five. Even more, your search engine might
>produce a different five better than mine!
>What is important is that I found all of these in less than 20
>minutes -- and so can any of you. Why do you want a citation? If
>you only wish to validate a preconceived notion you might search
>forever -- and learn nothing. If you wish to learn about "The
>Superiority of Mongolian Archers" then you should read everything
>relevant and never be seduced by a citation of a single source.
>For me, the concept that "archery skill" was just one important
>factor in the winning strategies of Subedai is important; but that
>mobility, faith in their general, flexibility and seige engines were
>also critical. The Mongols won -- therefore their archers were
>superior -- it mattering little what a single archer's skill was.
>The Hungarian cross-bow men won a single battle at a bridge but also
>concentrated their fire power at a single spot where they could be
>destroyed by siege engines. From several sources the Mongols lost
>about 300 Horsemen -- the Hungarians more than 6000 archers. Since
>the Mongols were fond of sailing bodies over the walls with their
>engines I guess that is a type of 'gleaning' too. I'll bet they
>saved the arrows though. By the way, from the Mongolian history
>point of view the Battle at the Bridge was a deliberate ploy to allow
>Subedai to make a secret crossing of the swamp and flank the enemy --
>but that's just 'an opinion'.
>Isn't research great? The cops are here.
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
>Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.2/1561 - Release Date:
>7/18/2008 6:35 PM