When Historical Books Show Inaccuracies

[Hand of Evil]

Many don't perform the task, they just publish what is believed as the way it was done because this person said so. You use to see this all the time and I think it is still about in some fields, they are elitists that protect and maintain old thoughts.

Some examples of this is how Dinosaurs are viewed today, and even Metor impacts.

 

[green slime]

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.

I have a childs book from the 60's which clearly deflates the idea that knights where lumbering tanks, incapable of doing aught but wild swings from horseback.

I'm fairly certain that in academic circles it was never believed that the armoured medieavel knight was unable to move in his armour.

It has always been understood that the armours of the 14th centuary where extremely well crafted, designed to fit their wearers comfortably, and not to hinder their movements. You could do sumersaults in these things. Perhaps you would be lacking some of the grace and speed with which you do this without the armour, but you could still do it.

 

[Quasqueton]

I was just discussing this subject (returning the book) with my co-workers, and they suggested going to Amazon.com to see what kind of reviews it has received from other readers. So I logged on, and this is the first and only comment from a reader:

This book is nothing more than a cut -and-paste job based on the familiar accounts of duels with a few sneering comments thrown in to demonstrate the author's cleverness.
The discerning reader with quickly recognize that the author is ignorant of the most basic techincal knowledge concerning the weapons she discusses. Clearly the author has not bothered to seriously research her subject--the certain mark of a journalist hack job.

We all laughed when I read this aloud, because it basically said exactly what I had just said.

Maybe I shouldn't make impulse purchases of books.

Quasqueton

 

[WayneLigon]

I think I have at least one book in the 'last 30 years' group that mentions the old chestnut about knights in armor being so heavy that they had to be winched onto their horses by small cranes.

 

[Mark Chance]

I'd certainly take the book back. I'd also suggest the book be moved to the fiction section.

My field is history, and I've seen no end of frauds and axe-grinders deceiving the public by claiming to be historians. Of course, in a day and age when news services fabricate sources for stories and way too many people believe opinion and fact are synonymous....

 

[Mark Chance]

...

 

[Djeta Thernadier]

I have a childs book from the 60's which clearly deflates the idea that knights where lumbering tanks, incapable of doing aught but wild swings from horseback.

I'm fairly certain that in academic circles it was never believed that the armoured medieavel knight was unable to move in his armour.

It has always been understood that the armours of the 14th centuary where extremely well crafted, designed to fit their wearers comfortably, and not to hinder their movements. You could do sumersaults in these things. Perhaps you would be lacking some of the grace and speed with which you do this without the armour, but you could still do it.

I was trying to *really* give her the benefit of the doubt (it was hard though) since I haven't studied the topic extensively...

But I agree. And common sense would dictate that when designing armor back then, they took into account movement and designed the armor to be moved, albeit clunkily, in. The author *seems* to think that just because these people lived hundreds of years ago, they were somehow not bright enough to think of that, and that idea is just silly.

Of course they were bright. They were innovative.

 

[jasper]

First a list of authors and books. Note some are dated.

Oakeshott, Ewart books and articles.
A Knight and his Armour, A Knight in Battle, A Knight and his Castle, A Knight and his Castle, A Knight and his Horse *, A Knight and his Weapons, Dark Age Warrior, The Archaeology of Weapons *, The Sword in the Age of Chivalry *. Journal of the Arms and Armour Society of London, A Royal Sword in Westminster Abbey in The Connoisseur Magazine 1951. The Sword in Anglo-Saxon England *, Fighting Men ( with Henry Treece), The Blindfold Game, Sound of Battle (with Leonard Clark) ,European Weapons and Armour*, Records of the Medieval Sword, Sword in Hand, Sword in the Viking Age (not yet published). http://www.oakeshott.org/

Joseph & Frances Gies, Life in a Medieval Castle, Life in Medieval City, Life in Medieval Village, A Medieval Family, Cathedral Forge and Water Wheel: Technology and Invention in the Middle Ages, Daily Life in the Medieval Times, Women in the Middle Ages, Marriage and the Family in the Middle Ages, By the Sweat of Thy Brow: Work in the Western World,

David Edge, John Miles Paddock Arms and Armour of the Medieval Knight

Boutell, Charles Arms and Armour in Antiquity and the Middle Ages

David Nicolle
Arms and Armour of the Crusading Era 1050-1350 Western Europe *, The Crusades Essential Histories, Medieval Warfare Source Book*, History of Medieval Life, The Hamlyn History of Medieval Life,

Tim Newark Celtic Warriors*, Medieval Warlords *,

Charles Ffoulkes The Armourer and His Craft from XIth to XVIth Century*

Rob Valentine The Art of Making Armour,
Brian Price Techniques of Medieval Armour Reproduction

Dr Jeffery L Forgeng The Medieval art of Swordsmanship

Hans Talfhoffer Fechtbuch

You can generally blame Mark Twain for armour is heavy and need a winch. Also even if your parents were not married when you were born. A bar sinister told nothing. You know why?

This is a bar in heraldric terms.
---------
And this is a bar sinister
--------
I typed from left to right.
What movies, bad art, bad theatre etc have done is use a bend in place of the bar. Think of bend as the international no sign.
\......
..\....
....\...
......\...
........\
is a bend.
A bend sinister is
......../
....../...
..../...
../.....
/.......
Once you know and remember ( it took me 8 years of knowing the difference before it sunk in) It gives new meaning to any phrase the bar sinister.

But what is the purpose of book dueling or armour. If just dueling then if the author had a fact checker less time would be given to asides.

And even very good authors still make mistakes.
Joseph Campbell in one of his books quotes an Washington state Indian Chief who states that we are the care takers of the land for our grand kids.
However I fought the author of the Chief's speech. In the 70's a scriptwriter for a documentary need a speech from an Indian to sum up the film. He could find one so he made one up and told the ptb that he did. Well the producers did not note that in the credits. And I think change the author credit from screen writer to researcher. This speech was then picked up by various Green groups. Even when the author who show the groups no such speech was ever made. Their response was don't bother me with the facts this is the truth. Or as one gunslinger said when the legend is better copy than the facts print the legend.
I have the author's interview with Reader Digest paper cliped into Campbells' book.

Yes inaccurate facts drive you crazy but what can you do?

 

[Storminator]

Fold this monstrosity into your games people! If our historians can be so wildly inaccurate, what would they be like in a D&D game? I regularly lie to my players, by laying out "facts" that just aren't true. Some examples:

All PCs must be humans, because that's the only intelligent race in the world.

All wizards are evil and must be killed immediately. The First High Priest of the the religion decreed it so hundreds ofyears ago.


Your players should hear some whoppers from time to time, so that when they discover the truth, they feel better than the rest of the world. Of course they'll be ridiculed by the ignorant masses...

PS

 

[S'mon]

". . . 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.

Knights were held helpless on the ground in the sucking mud at Agincourt, which formed a seal with their rigid armour (primarily the breastplate). I expect similar things could often happen on muddy battlefields - it wasn't the weight of their armour that held them down, but the suction effect of the mud.

As far as swords go, the war sword - great sword - was a two-handed weapon, it wasn't hugely sharp by modern standards and tended to crush armour rather than slice it - straight blades don't slice well through metal. It worked perfectly well at close quarters - as a bludgeoning/face-smashing weapon, primarily, AFAIK. Long (1-h) swords
aren't effective vs plate armour so tended not to be used much in the latter middle ages. Swords got bigger as the middle ages went on and chainmail, 1-h weapon + shield was replaced by full plate & a two-handed weapon.

No idea about rates of sword-making, although it doesn't sound absurd for an aristocratic weapon.