When Historical Books Show Inaccuracies

I recently bought a book about the history of dueling. I read the dust cover blurbs and wasn't completely sure about the material, but it was the only book on the subject in the store. The comments on the cover mentioned things like the author's "witty style." When reading a history book, I'm not sure I want to read a "witty style." "Thorough" or "insightful" would be better. But anyway, I bought the book.

After reading a few chapters, I'm starting to question the material's accuracy and factualness. Overlooking the author's (a woman) satirical comments on men and their nature (generally silly and violent in her estimation), I've come across a few statements that go contrary to what I've learned elsewhere:

Gentlemen's Blood
A History of Dueling from Swords at Dawn to Pistols at Dusk
by Barbara Holland

". . . but the original point of the knight had been as a fighting unit, a kind of mounted tank, impregnalbe in a heavy metal, on a big strong horse, lumbering and clanking onto the field of battle peering through a slit in his helmet and poking his lance at enemies similarly encoumbered. The idea was to push the enemy off his horse, since once unhoursed he lay helpless as an overturned turtle, ripe to be captured and held for ransom."

"The old original war sword was so massive it sometimes required both hands. It had been designed -- and worked splendidly if you were strong enough -- for knocking an armored knight off his horse, but it was useless at close quarters except as a bludgeon."

[Referring to Toledo swords makers] "A perfectionist might turn out only two or three masterpieces a year."

From what I've learned about the subjects:

First, an armored knight was never held helpless by his armor when unhorsed (unless he had sustained an injury from being knocked and falling from his horse). An armored knight could easily stand up from prone in full armor.

Second, a "standard" sword weighed only about 3-5 pounds, and was easily used in one hand by a trained man. And useful only as a bludgeon? What?

Third, so few swords a year just sounds absurd.

I've been debating returning the book to the store and getting a refund. When I read statements like the above, that I know are wrong, or just sound wrong, it makes me doubt the veracity of the rest of the material.

What would you do? Would you return the book? Or are the above examples not serious enough to bother your historical reading sensibilities? Am I being too critical?

Quasqueton

Sounds like an armchair historian did some research from some older and equally invalid sources and simply regurgitated them. I've certainly seen plenty of "history" books that were done the same way. Sure, I'd try to take it back. It's not like you'll ever read that one again.

Then again, I would probably have checked it out at the library before I bought it anyway.

What year was it published? A lot of the inaccuracies you're pointing out were believed to be true a decade or more ago. Technically, that means the author though they were true at the time -- hard to blame them for that.

Conversely, if it's a recent publication then that's just poor research.

Similarly, if you buy a book on dinosaurs that's old enough (thirty years ago or more), you will find them to be wildly inaccurate. Even though brontosaurus are now no longer considered to be "floating in the mud to support their massive weight" many books about dinosaurs were never updated to reflect the new perspective on them.

Reality is that historical research is not as reliable and dependable as we might hope.

EDIT: I typed "two years ago" instead of "thirty years ago" which is what I meant to type. Sorry, brainfart.

It sounds like you picked up a book by a feminist historian who would rather ridicule her subject than treat it respectuflly. (Historians of all stripes do this, by the way, not just feminists).

I'm no expert on swords, but I'm pretty sure they came in all sorts of sizes and shapes throughout history. It sounds like your author just collected anecdotes. American Civil War books are often like that.

I'd take the book back. Firstly, though, you should scan her bibliography and see what sources she used. There might be another book which treats the subject better. If you find one, go to your public library and get it through interlibrary loan (one of the most amazing and underutilized informational institutions of the modern age).

Two years or so ago? People have been using Apatosaurus in place of Brontosaurus for 30 years now; and that's in popular literature, which is probably 20 years behind! I would think any dinosaur book from the last 20-30 years should be moderately accurate. Although there's still new ones, especially for kids, that aren't being published even today.

Hmm. I would be interested in what year this was published. Did it actually have reasonable research on the subject matter itself? This sounds like the intro. Many historians writing out of their area of expertise tend to generalize and crib from poorly researched sources.

Regardless, I second the notion of returning the book after writing down the interesting titles in the back. Was there something in specific that you wanted to read about? I bet you could get good suggestions from this community.

"What year was it published? A lot of the inaccuracies you're pointing out were believed to be true a decade or more ago. Technically, that means the author though they were true at the time -- hard to blame them for that."

Copyright 2003. First printing.

Quasqueton

Joshua Dyal said:

Two years or so ago? People have been using Apatosaurus in place of Brontosaurus for 30 years now; and that's in popular literature, which is probably 20 years behind! I would think any dinosaur book from the last 20-30 years should be moderately accurate. Although there's still new ones, especially for kids, that aren't being published even today.

Click to expand...

Heh, that was a typo. I meant 30, actually, I'm not sure why I typed two.

I agree. It *sounds* like she used the subject matter of dueling (which in those days was pretty much done by men only to the best of my knowledge) to push some sort of anti-man agenda. That's just not cool.

I found a similiar book on the history of armor at a Barnes & Nobles once. I forget what it was called but it was in the bargain bin, for good reason. It was by a woman and very much pushing the "they were so stupid because a woman would have done it like this..." theme. AS a woman, I found that to be rather annoying. But this is not the forum for that.

The thing about the armor seems possible, but unlikely. I've never had the honor to wear a full set of armor so I'm not sure how mobile a person is in one, but presumably, these guys were trained and aware fo the fact that they may fall prone. So I'd think that they would have been able to get up. Of course, like others have said, people may not have known this a few years ago, so it really depends on what the authors sources told her.

Swords have always come in all shapes and sizes to the best of my knowledge. I could see where the larger ones may require both hands, but she should have mentioned that other types existed as well, or gone into more detail as to why these particular large swords were the only ones being used in these duels (sounds like that is what she is saying).

I think the part about a "perfectionist turning out 2-3 masterpieces per year" is a misunderstanding. It *sounds* like she is saying that a craftsman may turn out many swords a year, but consider (being a perfectionist) only a handful to be truly perfect.

I'd return it if you are unhappy with it. And if you are feeling ambitious, do a bit of research yourself and possibly write a letter to the publisher and let them know where the book is wrong, and what the correct facts are.

Quasqueton said:

". . . but the original point of the knight had been as a fighting unit, a kind of mounted tank, impregnalbe in a heavy metal, on a big strong horse, lumbering and clanking onto the field of battle peering through a slit in his helmet and poking his lance at enemies similarly encoumbered. The idea was to push the enemy off his horse, since once unhoursed he lay helpless as an overturned turtle, ripe to be captured and held for ransom."

Click to expand...

The Royal Armouries museum in Leeds, England includes regular display fights by guys in full plate armour (head to toe). They convincingly scuttle the popular wisdom (which this write seems to have bought into) that it made them unwieldy - to make the point one of the guys allowed himself to be knocked over, then he sprang to his feet pretty much as quickly as I could have done it in my normal clothes. These weren't muscle bound brutes, they were ordinary blokes who'd had experience wearing the stuff.

If you are ever in the North of the UK it is well worth visiting Leeds for the Royal Armouries - time it well and you can get to see a whole lot of ancient weaponry being put through its paces.

Cheers