Talk:Angon: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:11, 20 April 2023

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Blades, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BladesWikipedia:WikiProject BladesTemplate:WikiProject BladesBlades articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / Classical Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC – c. 500 AD)

NPOV wording?

Okay, maybe NPOV isn't the right term. But this wording seemed very strange: "It was rare on the battlefield,[4] despite the claim by Agathias,[5] being found mostly in the grave goods of the wealthy.[4]" It states the rarity and Agathias being wrong as facts, rather than presenting it as opposing views, and implies that the rarity as grave goods is connected to its rarity on the battlefield, which seems like a non sequitor. Maybe a wording like this would be better? "It's prevalence is disputed; contrary to Agathias, historian Guy Halsall has claimed the weapon to have been rare. In terms of archeological remains, it's mainly been found in the grave goods of the wealthy." 83.209.120.100 (talk) 14:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incendiary Weapons

I'm removing this from Category:Incendiary weapons because there's nothing in the article to indicate the angon was incendiary. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 19:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use

Having seen several video demonstrations of the Angon and Pilum and it seems that shield disabling is likely a secondary purpose, at best. The long, thin shaft behind the head helps the thrown weapon penetrate the shield for the whole length, when it would strike the shield carrier. Thorsson64 (talk) 16:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 == Incendiary Weapons ==
 I'm removing this from '''Category:Incendiary weapons''' because there's nothing in the article to indicate the angon was incendiary. --[[User:Mukkakukaku|<span style="color:#006600;">'''M'''û'''ĸĸ'''â'''ĸ'''û'''ĸ'''â'''ĸ'''û</span>]] 19:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
+== Use ==
+Having seen several video demonstrations of the Angon and Pilum and it seems that shield disabling is likely a secondary purpose, at best. The long, thin shaft behind the head helps the thrown weapon penetrate the shield for the whole length, when it would strike the shield carrier. [[User:Thorsson64|Thorsson64]] ([[User talk:Thorsson64|talk]]) 16:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)