First Forbes is not a reliable historian, I believe that is well known, I don't need to develop.
Maybe it's well known among historians, but I am only a lay reader in history. All I know is that he is not always in agreement with other Chess historians I am familiar with, and I sometimes agree with them rather than with him. Regardless, having a bad reputation doesn't mean he isn't right. So I'm more interested in what evidence you might mount against what he is saying than I am in attacks on his general credibility.
Then the photos I have shown on my website are NOT demonstrating that these German, Dutch or English pieces have taken this form of a tower because an influence of an Italian word for fortress.
Who said they were? When I said "supports", I meant corroboration, not proof. You brought them up as evidence that rukh was understood to mean rock in Europe, and I don't see these pieces as evidence of that.
f you look Murray's p422n18 you will see that ...
I may look at details in Murray later, but I don't have time right now.
Maybe it's well known among historians, but I am only a lay reader in history. All I know is that he is not always in agreement with other Chess historians I am familiar with, and I sometimes agree with them rather than with him. Regardless, having a bad reputation doesn't mean he isn't right. So I'm more interested in what evidence you might mount against what he is saying than I am in attacks on his general credibility.
Who said they were? When I said "supports", I meant corroboration, not proof. You brought them up as evidence that rukh was understood to mean rock in Europe, and I don't see these pieces as evidence of that.
I may look at details in Murray later, but I don't have time right now.