Accuracy and Study

[Neil Bockus]

There was something on my mind recently. In a class about Tudor and Stuart England, we were discouraged from using the Internet as a main source for research. We were given an example web page about King Charles I with some clearly inaccurate data from a non-primary, opinion-ridden site with clear falsities and embellishments. Fair enough.

But I got to thinking. Last semester one of my professors used the "heavy swords" cliche in class. A recent post on the ARMA forums mentions encyclopedias which follow prior popular belief that a full plate harness weighed enough to prevent a knight from moving on the ground, and in another now closed topic, a heated debate arose about sources and accuracies in books. Then the History channel has a couple blunders, aside from projecting '50's-movie looking barbarians, a Modern Marvels show "Bulletproof" talks about the struggle between arms and armor. By the 16th century, the show talks about how armor was proofed against firearms as it had to be built tougher and tougher. A historian on the show then describes these "bulletproof" knights as 'slow' and having 'one good charge' before they wore out their horses and became useless. UGH!

The problem becomes this: preforming in-depth study into RMA and swordsmanship requires the use of sources, and as we find more and more, they'd better be primary. Yet to bring this back around to my class discouraging the use of Internet sources, what happens when the Internet is more reliable than a book or even sometimes the professor!?

Though arms and armor is not a mainstay of said course, I'm using this restriction on Internet sources as an example. Say I were to quote this Worldbook Encyclopedia or whatever and say that knights were lumbering fools that couldn't walk and hacked at each other relentlessly, but noted that this came from a well known encyclopedia, suddenly it's true and it's accurate. Hell, it's been published!

Yet, if I were to quote something that is actually accurate from a website such as the ARMA, I'm pretty sure I'd violate the no-net restriction; even though this information is by all means better, more reliable and based on experience, rather than what some editor believes to be true, it becomes non-facto.

Even full book accuracy can come into question. The heavy armor cliche could well be used in several books, but because they're books, they've gotta be right, right? Yet another book says something else; that plate was very versatile, and certainly not awkward. This second book counters the first, but the first is still okay for research because it is a book. Does anyone else see a problem here?

I guess I fear that the ignorance of subjects such as the arms, armor, combat tactics and martial history of the medieval/Renn. West will continue to live on because of restrictions emplaced on research for the next generation. If GPA takes priority over real accuracy, what's the incentive to get the best information, or challange the restrictions? I know there's a lot of websites out there with pure bunk, but what of the ones that outshine even literature? Why do so many people take anything written on paper as being the undeniable truth when it's not?

Does anyone have any thoughts on this little bit? If not, I guess that's fine too; this was something I just had to get out there because it was really starting to bug me and I think it's something people should consider. Get the facts from the primary documents and/or reliable sources whose reliability can be affirmed.


Afterthought: Why the hell do all my professors think that you had to be 6'6" at 250lbs to swing a two hand sword? Source issue again, I'll bet...I just can't win.

[Risto Rautiainen]

It's just the matter of finding good books. That's where the internet comes in handy.

EDIT: I do understand the dilemma.

[Martin_Wilkinson]

This is similar to a time in about year 9, my year was taken on a history trip to one of the army museums in london, and given a talk on the civil war.

Anyway, during this talk the lecturer picked up a bill, partisan or halberd (it was a few years ago, so i can't remember specifics) and called it a pike, being a brat running around a civil war campsite i had learned a few things, and knew that what the guy had said was wrong, pikes are on average 16-18feet long, and the pole arm he had was no more that 10foot, that plus the fancy head gave away that he was wrong. I was clawing at the chair, holding myself back from calling the guy out on a basic mistake. I now wish i had.

Martin.

[Craig Peters]

Neil,

I can understand the feeling. I too am in the process of completing a degree, and while I've never had a prof specifically forbid the use of internet information when the ARMA material would be relevant, it could easily have happened to me too. The best thing to do is to talk to your prof. One of the first things I'd do is load up the ARMA webpage and show him the panel of scholars, particularly people like David Nicolle. Illustrating that ARMA isn't just some crank site put out by whomever and that it is supported by scholars will go a long way in his mind. Secondly, demonstrate that there is a lot of inaccuracy on the subject when one reads history books. When I'm explaining to a professor or anyone, I usually ask how much they think swords weigh, and when they give the typical response of fifteen pounds, I reply something to the effect of:

"Actually, for a medieval single handed sword, they tended to weigh between 2 to 4 lbs. Swords need to have thin edges in because they're cutting weapons. If you think about it too, when you're fighting for your life and making full arm extensions (here I tend to demo the movement of striking with a sword so that they can see) you'd get tired after fighting for a long time, and you wouldn't want a sword heavier than 2 to 4 lbs."

Pretty much every professor whom I've met, whether they're a medieval literature prof or a philosophy prof, immediately agrees with me that what I've said makes sense, and doesn't engage in further debate on the subject. Another thing you can point out is that the view that medieval swords are heavy comes from the Victorians when they compared medieval weapons to their feather light sport fencing weapons. As I'm sure you know, the fact that the Victorian weapons were designed for sport fencing, and not real fighting, already says much about their attitude towards medieval fighting.

The other extremely easy thing you can do is show them some of the ARMA manuals online. Most historians will become very excited and interested when they can see new primary documents they've never encountered before. It will also go a long way towards dispelling the view that the ARMA page, like other webpages, is highly unreliable. How many "Joe's War of the Roses" pages have copies of primary period sources?

I think that most professors, upon seeing that:

A) The ARMA has a panel of distinguished scholars and

B) Has knowledge relevant to the subject that many historians lack

will probably be open to you using ARMA as a resource for essays. I know that one of my profs, for whom I've done presentations in-class about the sword and buckler mostly using John's "The Sword & Buckler Tradition", was impressed by the amount of historical details that I was able to fit into the presentation. Give it a shot, and with any luck, you'll manage to change their views.

[Neil Bockus]

Hey Craig,

Funny you mention correcting the professor on sword weight...I've done it twice now; two professors on seperate occasions...I hope you are correct; if I can show the prof. a site, such as ARMA and get it pre-approved, I should be able to convince them to allow me to utilize the data.

Forcing us to use books alone can (aside from be hindering, waiting on reserves and all) work inherant errors into research by using non-primary literature that is susceptable to opinion or personal belief, yet is okayed for use. At the same time, I can see (somewhat) where they come from with so many unreliable sites out there; still, considering that reputable ones can be a goldmine for data pertaining to different subjects, I do not believe it is right to close off internet sources entirely.

As for the ARMA site itself, I have not yet been able to employ this site for current research (potentially later in the semester, though.) My main worry is that in a future course where combat specifics come into play I want to know that I can use the ARMA site and its resources for my research.

I guess what I'm getting at is that there can be too much faith put into one form of media (paper in this case) with not enough put into another. Just because John Smith wrote a book doesn't make its contents accurate. Similarly, that History Channel example; if the professor talking about the "bulletproof" plate harnesses had actually done his research, or checked his sources, he wouldn't have said to millions of viewers that knights were slow with one good charge and then were useless. He believes the way he does because of inaccurate research and opinion based on most likely Hollywood productions, or so-called "accurate" books on armor.

So, I suppose tomorrow I'll see if I can try to convince him of at least a few reputible websites pertaining to our current subject matter, and if we do get into the nitty gritty of some of the battles we're covering, see if I can't get the ARMA approved for use.

[steve hick]

Another idea is to contact the Arma staff of experts and ask them for written material that backs up your thesis. I've contacted a number of them, and if approached correctly, they are very helpful.
Steve

[Craig Peters]

Another thing that can be immensely problematic, and still plagues historians to this day, is knowing when people are using hyperbole, exaggeration, or the like in historical sources, and when they're actually telling the truth. I seem to recall that it was recorded that King John of England only took one bath per year, which led to the widespread view that medieval people had no conception of hygiene whatsoever. However, we've now realized that whoever wrote this down was criticizing John for it, and making fun of him, rather than stating one of the societal norms at the time. In particular, battles are notoriously difficult, in that people often embellish details in one way or another, and it can be difficult at times to detect that alteration of the narrative may have occurred. Even with the primary sources we have to be careful.

[philippewillaume]

Hello
I think it is a bit more complex than that. You see historian tend to specialise in one field, and the problem is it is in most of the cases way too narrow.
If you want to beginning to understand what happen at Crecy you need a minimum of tactical and strategical sense as well as an understanding of the weapons and armours.

As well we are getting out of a period (since the last 10 years) where Historian believed what was written was an objective representation of facts.
So now for exemple, the wars of Gaul is more seen as a PR exercise than an objective account of the battles or the campaign.
as if mankind had waited for Goebels to invented propaganda.

On the bright side, it is easier for medieval time at least to gain access to sources so you can have much less one side accounts to base your research on but still they can only written about what they are aware of.

I will give you a simple example to understand a medieval battle you need to understand armours, longbow crossbow and horses.
So far I have seen only on research on arrowhead/bolt/quarrel type and in what they were made of according to the period.
Horse area totally alien beast to most of the scholar.
We do not even know what was the poundage of longbow (we have a few idea with some 14 cent bow and the rose mary bow.
Armour data is relatively scarce but that probably where we have the most data.
I know of serious study of crossbow since Paynes Galley…

I think book are much worth than Internet data because with internet you have the immediate reflex that this may not be reliable data so your critical sense kick in and you do more research.

With book the problem is that, you need to be aware of contradicting data to have a critical view if the author position.

For example in his book on the longbow Thomas Hardy state that the horses were vulnearble to longbow during the HYW, well what about the account of the battle of verneuil, poitier, formigny and Patay with that in mind it is quite clear that longbow on its own power was not enough to stop heavy cavalry.

but all that apllies even to modern information. for exemple WWII war plane the introduction og teh FW 190 A9/F9 was always in question until very recently and you just needed to look at german losses and quatermaster reports.

phil

[William Savage]

if you cant use the internet just quote experts, for instance "according to expert William Savage, knights were the best"

tada!

[Neil Bockus]

Hmm...just maybe... <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />