Talk:Battle of Agincourt: Difference between revisions
Created page with '"There is no proof that the incident really happened, but as many contemporary writers mentioned it in their works, we can assume that it did happen": oh, no, no. A bit more Quel…' |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
"There is no proof that the incident really happened, but as many contemporary writers mentioned it in their works, we can assume that it did happen": oh, no, no. A bit more Quellenkritik is necessary, especially with Medieval Sources, which also agree on miracles, spontaneous supernatural acts and appearances of the Virgin Mary. | "There is no proof that the incident really happened, but as many contemporary writers mentioned it in their works, we can assume that it did happen": oh, no, no. A bit more Quellenkritik is necessary, especially with Medieval Sources, which also agree on miracles, spontaneous supernatural acts and appearances of the Virgin Mary. | ||
"English losses are not worth to be mentioned": call me old-fashioned, but the loss of life is always worth mentioning. | |||
Latest revision as of 14:57, 29 April 2010
"There is no proof that the incident really happened, but as many contemporary writers mentioned it in their works, we can assume that it did happen": oh, no, no. A bit more Quellenkritik is necessary, especially with Medieval Sources, which also agree on miracles, spontaneous supernatural acts and appearances of the Virgin Mary.
"English losses are not worth to be mentioned": call me old-fashioned, but the loss of life is always worth mentioning.