Comments by "Mat Broomfield" (@matbroomfield) on "Малкольм Гладуэлл: Неизвестная история Давида и Голиафа" video.

Buddy, I'm not the one who decided how blind he was, Gladwell was. But in the Bible Goliath used the word "sticks" not staff, so if that counts for anything, he could not distinguish between a staff and a stick. But like I've said, I already think the whole story is probably made up.
1
That doesn't make sense. The Israelites were fighting to defend their land. Does anyone honestly think that just because the Phillistines fielded a single fearsome warrior that the Israelites would just give up and surrender their homes and land? Of course not - they'd just return to their default position of waiting.
1
At a time where a warrior would eventually be ORDERED to fight him, such a high risk gambit is the stuff of silly fairy stories only. Intimidation is one part of a combat arsenal grated, but knowing that sooner or later someone would HAVE to step forwards to fight and your man would be found desperately wanting,only a fool would make such a choice. And why was such a liability even on the battlefield in the first place? Both Andre and Robert Wadlow could barely walk.
1
:-)
1
What has that to do with anything?
1
"This kind of thing" what, sending one of the least competent people in your army to go fight for you? I think before telling me what I don't understand, you should ensure that YOU understand the point that I was making. Especially when it's clear that you have no expertise in the subject at hand.
1
But the story is told as an underdog story.THAT is its cultural significance. To reconstruct this FICTITIOUS event so that it is opposite is misleading. Albeit interesting.
1
I completely got the point. The point is fallacious. The point of the original STORY was that a brave underdog with God on his side can defeat insurmountable odds. If you now treat the story as a historical event and use it to prove the complete opposite - that David was NOT an underdog at all, then YOU miss the whole point. It would be like me doing a geopolitical analysis that showed that the three little pigs were actually the aggressors.
1
Okay - good show - I concede that you have made some good examples, and they show a precedent that such a thing has happened. As I am not convinced that the David and Goliath story ever even happened, or that David existed, I'm still doubtful that this was a monster bluff by an invading army that somehow lacked the foresight to plan for the terrain, but you have shown that it's not UTTERLY beyond the bounds of possibility. Well debated sir.
1
Anybody who understands hand to hand fighting would know better than to fear someone on size alone - especially someone who lumbers into the combat arena. The army's reaction is just theatre designed to flesh out the story and accentuate David's heroism - the whole incident probably never happened.
1
Ooooh, trying to use my own words aginst me. Nice try but no cigar. In his explanation, Gladwell says "profoundly near-sighted" and calls Goliath "oblivious until the very last moment" and concludes it was "because he can't see him". Try again.
1
I could acceppt your theory about the chaperone being an armour barer, except that the text says that he lead Goliath by the hand. That is not the role of an armour bearer, nor would it be intimidating to the enemy. The sling shot may well have been a devastating weapon in its place, but Goliath had a shield and was armoured. A slingshot has a slow reload and launch time, so David would have had time for a single shot and there's no reason why Goliath could not have protected himself.
1
lol!
1
Go on then - show me some comparable examples of all or nothing bluffing that has happened in historical warfare, not stories.
1
I'll take that chance. Usually when the other person starts being insulting, I know they're floundering and frustrated at the weakness of their position. Thanks for the concession.
1
A fascinating over-analysis of an event that may never have occurred, featuring people who may never have existed. But putting that aside for a second, what army would be so stupid, in a winner-takes-all fight, as to field a man so infirm that he needs a chaperone to support him; so blind that he can't see his opponent; and so slow that even in hand to hand combat, he would be lumbering? This fantastical analysis beggars all logic.
1
Or the whole thing was just a story told to make a point, just like the tortoise and the hare.
1
One can suppose anything when the story is fictitious, but what real army would stake an entire kingdom on such a gambit?
1
There's a massive difference between an army having some members who are impaired, and the entire army being impaired. Or as in this case, the entire future of a kingdom being placed upon the shoulders of one visibly incapable warrior.
1
Contemplating the completely fabricated genetic disabilities of a character who most likely never existed, and its implications on bronze age combat strategies is an over-analysis in my book.
1
They were an INVADING army. If they had no chance of winning, they would hardly have sat there looking at the Israeites across the valley for days..
1
Now that comment did make me laugh. Bravo. You don't take yourself too seriously. I could learn from that! :-)
1
No, you just acted like a smartass without substantiating your remarks. An ad hom with no explanation is just childishness. My remarks were extremely reasonable, but you disagree. Rather than explaining WHY you disagree, you adopted the low ground with silly insults. I could play that game but it gets us nowhere in what is supposed to be a forum for INTELLIGENT discussion.
1
Bravo.
1
I never questioned the plausibility of one on one combat - just the specifics of this alleged combat. Only a person with almost no experience of fighting would suggest that near blindness was not a critical impediment in a fight; especially a fight to the death. Your depth perception, and your ability to distinguish smaller details such as a weapon, would be vital in any fight.
1