Talk:Angon

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Blades, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BladesWikipedia:WikiProject BladesTemplate:WikiProject BladesBlades

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / Classical

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

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]