Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
My disbelief in the sanctity of the Lance and its connection to the Passion is meaningless--a critical mass of crusaders AND OF CHRONICLERS seem to accept it. It feels very much the case of modern ideas being imposed onto the historical record in spite of the manuscripts.
We're talking about the 'lance' of the First Crusade at Antioch? I mean, they won the battle, so obviously it was genuine. That's how the Romans assessed these sorts of things - if you won, it was obviously because your side had the divine power behind it. They won, so QED.
Exactly--and yes, that one. For me, the fact that the 4 eyewitness accounts believe seems like a pretty major point... but the fact that numerous NON eyewitnesses writing after the Lance was lost believe in it is perhaps an even more important one.
As much as I am for trying to find out objectively 'true' things about the past, being able to just inhabit the epistemological headspace of your subjects is an important skill. It worked, therefor it was genuine. If it stops working, it's a fake.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
