David versus Goliath -- Did Goliath have no Chance? - History -- Two Plus Two Poker Forums

Two Plus Two Forums Other Topics History

David versus Goliath -- Did Goliath have no Chance?

Post Reply Subscribe

...

11-13-2015 , 04:12 AM

Mason Malmuth

Former Top Dog

Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 13,010

Did problems caused by giantism mean that Goliath had no chance?

https://www.ted.com/talks/malcolm_gl...th?language=en

Best wishes,
Mason

Quote

11-14-2015 , 12:19 AM

EADGBE

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 15,841

lol gladwell, pulling a NARRATIVE out of his ass as always.

shield bearer changed to "attendant" leading goliath out. just ****ing lol.

Quote:

he Philistine came on and drew near to David, with his shield-bearer in front of him. 42 When the Philistine looked and saw David, he disdained him, for he was only a youth, ruddy and handsome in appearance. 43 The Philistine said to David, “Am I a dog, that you come to me with sticks?” And the Philistine cursed David by his gods. 44 The Philistine said to David, “Come to me, and I will give your flesh to the birds of the air and to the wild animals of the field.” 45 But David said to the Philistine, “You come to me with sword and spear and javelin; but I come to you in the name of the Lord of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have defied. 46 This very day the Lord will deliver you into my hand, and I will strike you down and cut off your head; and I will give the dead bodies of the Philistine army this very day to the birds of the air and to the wild animals of the earth, so that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel, 47 and that all this assembly may know that the Lord does not save by sword and spear; for the battle is the Lord’s and he will give you into our hand.”

48 When the Philistine drew nearer to meet David, David ran quickly toward the battle line to meet the Philistine. 49 David put his hand in his bag, took out a stone, slung it, and struck the Philistine on his forehead; the stone sank into his forehead, and he fell face down on the ground.

where is the "slow, lumbering" giant in this text? what a load of rubbish. in any case why would you think Goliath, if he even existed, was anywhere close to the claimed 6'9"? Biblical and ancient texts in general are known for their extreme exaggerations.

sorry for the rant, i have an irrational white hot hate for all things gladwell.

Quote

11-14-2015 , 12:44 AM

Mason Malmuth

Former Top Dog

Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 13,010

Quote:

Originally Posted by EADGBE

lol gladwell, pulling a NARRATIVE out of his ass as always.

shield bearer changed to "attendant" leading goliath out. just ****ing lol.

where is the "slow, lumbering" giant in this text? what a load of rubbish. in any case why would you think Goliath, if he even existed, was anywhere close to the claimed 6'9"? Biblical and ancient texts in general are known for their extreme exaggerations.

sorry for the rant, i have an irrational white hot hate for all things gladwell.

Hi EADGBE:

My understanding is that Goliath was supposed to have been much taller than 6'9". More like 9 feet.

In addition, if you're suffering from Giantism, as you age, your joints continue to grow and thus you become very immobile. So even if Goliath could see just fine, since he had been the champion of the Philistines for a long time, he would be very slow, and as long as David kept his distance, Goliath would never touch him. So I agree that this was probably a mismatch, one in which Goliath had no chance.

Best wishes,
Mason

Quote

11-14-2015 , 06:17 PM

mrbaseball

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 13,085

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mason Malmuth

I agree. This is a prehistoric example of bringing a knife to a gun fight. Or more specifically a sword to a sling fight. Range always wins.

Quote

11-19-2015 , 11:32 AM

Rikers

veteran

Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 2,320

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrbaseball

I agree. This is a prehistoric example of bringing a knife to a gun fight. Or more specifically a sword to a sling fight. Range always wins.

Disagree,

there is a reason sword and shield were used in the army even in medieval ages and archers (more precise then slingshoters) were second class at best....

more likely historians didn't know about variance so they over-fitted their conclusions....

Quote

11-19-2015 , 06:10 PM

mrbaseball

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 13,085

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rikers

A lot depends on the type and strength of the armor. Goliath apparently didn't have a helm since he got clocked in the forehead. A vulnerable head is a tasty target with a ranged weapon and I am assuming the range was short enough for the sling to be accurate but long enough for the sword to be useless.

Quote

11-22-2015 , 07:52 AM

Rikers

veteran

Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 2,320

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrbaseball

Goliath apparently didn't have a helm since he got clocked in the forehead.

to large imo

Quote

05-16-2016 , 10:57 PM

Carnivore

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 8,187

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mason Malmuth

Hi EADGBE:

My understanding is that Goliath was supposed to have been much taller than 6'9". More like 9 feet.

No modern human has ever been measured to be 9 feet tall. And those over 8 feet can barely walk.

I'd be surprised if Goliath was anything over 7 feet. People were much smaller back then.

Google search gives 6'9" and that sounds realistic.

Quote

Post Reply Subscribe

...