Quasqueton
First Post
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
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
Last edited: