Bizarre Misconceptions...

[Corey Roberts]

Popular fiction and the media are full of historical misconceptions and inaccuracies, but often accepted reference works which are supposed to contain factual and accurate information are rife with bizarre misconceptions. The following excerpt on armour from an article on Knights comes from the World Book Encyclopedia:
"...Gunpowder appeared on the battlefield in the early 1300's and led to armor so heavy that the knight had to be lifted on his horse by a crane . If he fell off during battle, he could not get up without help, and often lay at the mercy of the enemy."
When the Encylcopedia tells you stuff like this it's no wonder there is so much erroneous info out there. Where do they come up with this stuff?

[Jaron Bernstein]

Is this before or after the knight dropped his 25 pound sword? <img src="/forum/images/icons/tongue.gif" alt="" />

[Filip Pobran]

i think that misconception came from ONE medieval drawing of knight being pulled on (or off) the horse by men and winch

[Allen Johnson]

Is it in the Mac Bible? Is it a seige picture?

[Filip Pobran]

dunno

[Joachim Nilsson]

Is it in the Mac Bible? Is it a seige picture?

Neither. That particular misconception stems from a Victorian slightly comedy-orieneted stage play.

[JeanryChandler]

I think "A connecticut Yankee in King Arthurs court" repeats the myth IIRC and led it into modern mythology...

Jr

[Joachim Nilsson]

Yes, that was the name of the play. Thanks Jeanry.

[John_Clements]

That's sad. Perhaps it's influenced by a Victorian-era drawing of a 16th century knight being hoisted onto his horse in his heavy tilting armor (armor not designed for nor ever intended for foot combat but only being slammed by blunt lances in a jousting sport).

Anyway, can you provide the edition and page number for this quote? I'd love to use it.

Also, see my article on the myth of clumsy knight in Military History magazine last June.

JC

[Gene Tausk]

"When the Encylcopedia tells you stuff like this it's no wonder there is so much erroneous info out there. Where do they come up with this stuff?"


Which is one of the primary reasons for the existence of ARMA. We are here to help correct these absurd myths and misinformation that abounds, even among (unfortunately) scholars of the time period.

It's hard to believe that in the information age in which we live such nonsense is still passed off as fact.


-----------&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;gene tausk
SFS
Study Group Leader - Houston ARMA Southside

[Corey Roberts]

1976 World Book Encyclopedia, J-K Volume 11, "Knights and Knighthood" P. 276, under heading "Armor"

[Filip Pobran]

It's hard to believe that in the information age in which we live such nonsense is still passed off as fact.

well, it IS information, isn't it? <img src="/forum/images/icons/smirk.gif" alt="" /> just scroll a bit wickipedia. ALL sorts of information are there

[Gene Tausk]

My point was that it is unacceptable for a peer-reviewed compendium, like an encyclopedia, to have such inaccuracies in it. Now, given the fact that this entry was from 1976 when our knowledge was a bit more sketchy makes it somewhat less egregious. However, some research would have shown, even in those dark ages (when I was still a young lad in the very early stages of elementary school) that swords did not weigh 25 lbs., plate armor did not create lumbering idiots who could barely put one foot in front of the other, much less not be able to fight, and that European warriors in the Middle Ages received no instruction in fighting (I mean, after all, if you have a 25 lb. sword, I guess you can just about smash through anything).

The information presented in the article is unacceptable.

As for your cite to Wikipedia, that is not a peer-reviewed encyclopedia. It is one of the many internet sources which, although good for starting research, should certainly not be taken as the last word.

Suppose I were to publish that same statement today in a peer-reviewed encyclopedia?

-----------------&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;gene tausk
SFS
Study Group Leader - Houston ARMA Southside

[JeanryChandler]

The funniest thing about Encyclopedias to me is that the general rule of thumb seems to be that the older works are far better -more nuanced, more detailed, better written in a more grownup manner. As time goes by they increasingly read like TV sound bytes.

Check out Encyclopdia Brittanica from the 1930's or even the around turn of the century next time you are in a good library...

JR

[Neil Bockus]

You make a good point about the age of encyclopedias, and the knowledge that changes them. I've got a set back at my house from the 1950's that talks about the wonders of the miracle rock known as Asbestos and all its wonderful applications. Another set, from the same publishers in the late 1970's mention the not-so-miraculous fibers known to cause lung diseases/death, but which had formerly been a common material. I wonder then, has anyone consulted a more modern encyclopedia to see if there has been any changes made for the better? (I don't consult many encyclopedias while on campus...)