Roots of Medieval Myths

[Jonathan Harton]

Hey guys,

I'm working on some research that requires me to look into the historiography of the past opinions of scholars on the evolution of Medieval weapons and armour. Having always been directed towards those scholars who are now widely considered to have gotten things right, Oakeshott, David Nicolle, Alan Williams, etc, I have found myself in the strange but problematic position of not knowing where the old myths of clumsy medieval warriors weighed down by armour, with little definable martial talent, and with heavy swords, etc originated.

I know a lot of these myths are due to the ignorence of 18th and 19th century writers, but which specific texts and authors the were major players in these myths becoming the accepted truth?



Thanks for the help,
Jonathan.

[Benjamin Smith]

To be perfectly honest there isn't much scholarship involved that got the information wrong so much as there is considerable neglect of the subject on the part of reputable scholars.

Part of it carries over from the disdain for the middle ages in the Enlightenment. Part of it comes from the re-enactment and role-playing community who tried to make all their own stuff, did a really bad job, got really impressed/their butts handed to them by Asian martial artists and concluded that that European weaponry was inferior. Another part comes from the sport fencing community which grew out of the non-lethal smallsword duelling that became popular on mailand Europe. When they tried to get their hands around ancient weapons they realized that they couldn't use the tecniques they were accustomed to and that they were much heavier than their foils and epees they concluded that swordsmanship had evolved. Another part is also due to the militaries in Europe, which by quit having full-time soldiers training on a regular basis with close combat weaponry in favor of guns and their comparatively short training time. Another element, albeit less acknowledged is that professors and historians who were brilliant scholars, but had no concept of physical fitness, much less martial arts, couldn't fathom how people could use ancient weaponry (there is I think one book published by a reputed professor that claims that medieval weaponry was too heavy and clumsy for modern man to wield, I'll try and look it up for you).

That's pretty much the best anyone can come up with for the source of this myth. Hollywood doesn't help much either. I myself, in a class I took on the history of the Americas had a professor touch upon the "evolution" of Spanish swords, claim that it wasn't until barely before the Spanish came to America that they invented swords that could thrust, and that previous weapons were just big steel clubs. I unfortunately was too nice, and didn't have the material with me at the time to call him on that one. I should have sent him some info after class or something. Historians aren't perfect, we often expect them to know the answers to everything, but they don't. The problem is that people like to pontificate and act as though they have all the answers.

[Eric Allen]

I think tracking down the origins of these misconceptions to any particular paper or scholar is going to be exceedingly difficult. Best you could do is look in the bibliographies of some books that make these claims, then look in the bibliographies of the books those books cite, and continue until you find the earliest mention of that particular misconception. If anyone has the time and energy to do that, more power to them.

The perpetuation of these misconceptions, while a different matter alltogether, is I think related. Like in Benjamin Smith's example, sometimes they are perpetuated by scholars who just don't know any better and just repeat what they have heard. I wouldn't doubt if this is the major reason these myths are still around.

Consider: Author "A" is writing a book about knights. He wants to write a chapter on the weapons used by knights, so he looks to other works. Which other works does he look to? Well, author "A" is likely a historian, and his book is a history, so naturally he will look to sources he is familiar with--namely other history scholars' books. Now let's say the other book he choses to reference, written by author "B," says that "swords weighed up to 35 pounds." Author "A" has never come into contact with a sword before. Sure, he's seen them in movies, probably seen one or two in a museum, but he's never held one, and doesn't rally know much about them besides that they were used to kill people. So, our friend "A" does not know any better than to cite author "B." Thing is, author "B" probably knew about as much about swords as "A" when he wrote his book, and probably referenced another, earlier book by author "C," who got his information from "D" and so on. It may even be that the original citation was either someone literally making a figure up (people are prone to hyperbole, after all), maybe a scholar with a poor sence of being able to judge weight, or maybe even it was a "clerical error" and there was supposed to be a decimal point that got accidentaly left out, so that "35 lbs"was supposed to be "3.5 lbs." Or maybe, author "D" misread author "E" and even though E got it right, D misinterpreted him and accidentaly started the misconception.
In any case, authors "A," "B," "C," and so on simple cited other author's figures without either 1) tracing back to the original citation to see what they really said or 2) going to a museum and weighing a real sword.
Why? Probably because they didn't know any better. And why should they? Thier careers, hobbies, and studies likely had very little to do with the arms and armor of their period of study. After all, does a military historian have to have an intimate familiarity with the AK-47 to write a history of the Vietnam War? No, of course not, other than that it was a gun used at the time and it shoots and kills.

From there, the misconceptions are propagated by ignorance and lack of interest. Look at it this way: How many serious practicioners of our art or people who make their living with medieval arms and armor will tell you "Real medieval swords were big and heavy and weighd tens of pounds" or "a knight needed to be hoisted into his saddle by a crane"? Very few (I won't say none, because there are some nutballs out there). Why? Because these people have a vested interest in the subject. It is close to their hearts, and it is something they come into ontact with almost daily.

Now, how many hobbiests, weekend reenactors, and armchair generals will tell you this misinformation? The percentage goes up. Why? Because they see it as a hobby, and though some may show a true vested interest, most don't really care that much.

Now think of the general public. Average Joe and Jane Schmoe. How many of them will regurgitate these myths? Almost all of them. Why? Because they likely got their information second- or third-hand from someone without a vested interest to get it right and they themselves don't care one way or the other which is the truth. It doesn't matter to them if a sword weighed 3, 30, or 300 lbs.

Sorry about the long-winded post. I just started typing, and my fingers just wouldn't stop...

[Jonathan Harton]

Tanks guys, both of you make really good points and these are things I have been sorting out of the past few days. I know it's near impossible to track these myths back to their original sources. This is only a small part of my research and I'm just looking to get a sense of the progression of the ideas over time since the Medieval period closed.

Here's a question: does anyone know of a text where one of the noted 18th and/or 19th century fencing (foil, sabre, etc) writers comments on the progression of swordplay into it's "supreme" form wtih the rise of sport fencing and non-mortal duels over the "crude" past styles? I've heard of this being stated but never have read anything saying it.

Thanks again,
Jonathan.

[philippewillaume]

Hello

Most of the myth have a true base.

Yes there was some 8-12 kilos bearing sword, and yes at the time of Henry II in France you need to hoist the knight on his horse. Jousting armour at the time had the left arm as part of the cuirass and was ultra thick. but in any case without your left arm there is no way you can get on the donkey.
There are 5 main reasons as to why it was not until now very easy to correct myth.

For a long time access to information has been very difficult, much more than now. So people worked from a very small sample and the further back in time you go the less text you have. And there was not that much co-operation between countries or even museums. (Even now it is quite hard to know exactly what there is in a museum)
So most of the time, later sources were retrofitted to earlier period, so you have harmour being heavy and cumbersome in the 15th cent because it we have a text that say it was in the late 16th early 17th.

As well historians tend to be conservative, so if a very well know researcher says something, there may be hell to pay if you go against it. As well histogram are using other people works as base of their own research an do that work is considered as accurate. Because of the first reason it is easy to miss a contradicting sources, (or some would say to purposefully ignore it), so the reasoning in itself is sound but they just missed pieces to have a more complete reflection.

History, especially in the late 19th and early 20th, was a very political act. So things were conveniently ignored or put into the fore front.
For example it suited the French republic to show the nobility being twits so the defeat of the HYW, were really geared up that way.
You can find that in any countries, until now it was not very well known that the English industrial revolution was founded on slavery or some African tribes becomes rich by selling other Africans to the slave traders.

Until the last 10-20 years, Historian have considered historical document as an accurate and unbiased description of truth. So for example Caesar commentaries were seen as depiction of facts where now it more seen as PR exercise to show how brilliant he was.


Scholars do not have any idea of the physical aspect of the historical fact or technology, so it is very difficult for them tranfart their knowledge into physical activity.
The beast example is that you need stirrups to use a couched lance which is really utter bolloks.

phil

[Will Adamson]

I may be wrong, but the various versions of the Arthur story are a pretty big culprit. Each new story, or retelling, became increasing fantastical. Yes, it started off as fiction (although possibly based on a historical figure and one battle) but subsequent generations adapted the story to reflect their own ideas, ideals, etc. thus removing it even further from plausible historic accuracy and people will often look at something like that as being history instead of fantastical fiction.

[Jeff Hansen]

Hey guys,

I'm working on some research that requires me to look into the historiography of the past opinions of scholars on the evolution of Medieval weapons and armour. Having always been directed towards those scholars who are now widely considered to have gotten things right, Oakeshott, David Nicolle, Alan Williams, etc, I have found myself in the strange but problematic position of not knowing where the old myths of clumsy medieval warriors weighed down by armour, with little definable martial talent, and with heavy swords, etc originated.

I know a lot of these myths are due to the ignorence of 18th and 19th century writers, but which specific texts and authors the were major players in these myths becoming the accepted truth?



Thanks for the help,
Jonathan.

Send an E-Mail to JC, or wait for him to stumble across this thread. I'm Pretty sure I've heard him rattle off the names of various 19th c. ninnies who got it all wrong. If anyone can point you in the right direction, he can.

[Aaron Kavli]

Howdy,

If you look in the articles and essays area, you will find a piece called "How Much Did Historical Blades Weigh?"

There is more info in the piece, but just by way of one cited specific from the article...

Despite the measurable facts, many are convinced today that these large swords simply are, or even have to be, exceptionally heavy. The view is not one limited to modern times. For example, Thomas Page's otherwise unremarkable 1746 military fencing booklet, The Use of the Broad Sword, exclaimed nonsense about earlier swords that became largely accepted as fact in the 19th (and 20th) century. Revealing something of how much things in that period had changed from earlier skills and knowledge of martial fencing, declared how their: "Form was rude, and their use without Method. They were the Instruments of Strength, not the Weapons or Art. The Sword was enormous length and breadth, heavy and unwieldy, design'd only for right down chopping by the Force of a strong Arm." (Page, p. A3). Page's views were not uncommon among fencers then use to featherweight smallswords and the occasional saber and short cutlass.

[Benjamin Smith]

I've done some looking through sources of various types, chiefly via Google Scholar and here's what I noticed:

People with some fencing background writing the history of fencing use the adjectives: heavy, weighty, etc... without any figures or serious study

People with academic background and little interest in the specific subject use adjectives such as: heavy, strong, weighty, robust, or stout... again usually without any figures or serious study. They don't necessarily refer to them as "unbearably heavy," "less evolved," or "inferior" as the fencing people do, but neither do they use the words we would use: quick, agile, lethal, well-crafted, thoughtfully designed, highly evolved/developed, fine, as good as any other, or deadly.

Scholars with significant interest are with us, 85%. They still don't quite appreciate their quality like we do because even the good ones don't have the slightest idea how to use them.

People with re-enactment/fantasy backround within the last 5 years are split about 50-50, but they still often think they're of lesser quality than other cultures' swords. The other half are with us most of the way.

Now again, I haven't done a lengthy delineation of any specific sources, this is just a general observation of the first hundred or so documents I could get a look at.

[Eric Allen]

Using adjetives like "weighty" or "heavy" to describe swords:

Well, considering where they are coming from, I can fully understand why they are going to use those adjetives. They are comparing our swords to fencing foils or epees, which is the only type of "Western" sword most people have any sort of contact with at all. Compared to an epee, a longsword or even a rapier can very aptly be described as "heavy," as it is, without a doubt, heavier than the epee.
The problem comes when thay make assumptions of the skill and art necessary to effectively wield these "heavy" swords or try to quantify, falsely, how much of a difference there is.

[s_taillebois]

Concerning academics and the art of the sword. Fairly few practice any of these arts, and as noted if they'd seen any at all it does tend to be either epee/foil or theatrical fencing.
Another factor which shifts perceptions, are conditions within much of current academic culture. Generally, the academic culture can tend to be very hoplophobic, to the point that too much overt interest in weapons and arts attendent...would subject anyone who studies such for their own merits, to implied censure and even failure. As a result, for those who follow the hoplophobic manner, it is a form of obtuse moral superiority implied when they state that the sword arts were little more than simplistic gross movements using large iron bars which were wielded by hirsute and illiterate barbarians.
Implication of course being, these academics are much more civilized than the distance dead about which they study or discourse.
Hard to explain it fully, but within the general academic culture, the serious study of weapons and arts, is oft something those who practice have to be careful about revealing. Weird given that the art of the sword was an aspect of many learned men...

[Jason Taylor]

Concerning academics and the art of the sword. Fairly few practice any of these arts, and as noted if they'd seen any at all it does tend to be either epee/foil or theatrical fencing.
Another factor which shifts perceptions, are conditions within much of current academic culture. Generally, the academic culture can tend to be very hoplophobic, to the point that too much overt interest in weapons and arts attendent...would subject anyone who studies such for their own merits, to implied censure and even failure. As a result, for those who follow the hoplophobic manner, it is a form of obtuse moral superiority implied when they state that the sword arts were little more than simplistic gross movements using large iron bars which were wielded by hirsute and illiterate barbarians.
Implication of course being, these academics are much more civilized than the distance dead about which they study or discourse.
Hard to explain it fully, but within the general academic culture, the serious study of weapons and arts, is oft something those who practice have to be careful about revealing. Weird given that the art of the sword was an aspect of many learned men...

Maybe I'm just lucky. But I am an academic, and an ARMA member (new this month! Yea!) and I talk about my weapons fixation with fair regularity among my coworkers. Of course, I do exercise some circumspection, but I find that not too much is needed, so that's pretty good.

As for the myth thing, I blame Hollywood. You might also look at Ivanhoe and other such classical literary works and see how it's portrayed there.

Jason

[s_taillebois]

"Maybe I'm just lucky. But I am an academic, and an ARMA member (new this month! Yea!) and I talk about my weapons fixation with fair regularity among my coworkers. Of course, I do exercise some circumspection, but I find that not too much is needed, so that's pretty good.

As for the myth thing, I blame Hollywood. You might also look at Ivanhoe and other such classical literary works and see how it's portrayed there."

It seems so, obviously it does depend on the institution and department.
And weird insofar as the arts of many learned men did once include the art of the sword.
However, I'd wonder if the sometimes academic perception of the Renn. medieval sword arts, and their applications, might tend to provide a shallow image of the original practioners. For example, GianLorenzo Bernini was a fairly accomplished swordsman, as were others like Loyola and etc. And Liechtenauer's verse (in addition to being good writing on its own merit) mentions morality concerning force and courage, as well as the mechanics of the art. As did Silver and others.
Perhaps academia would be a better place, if they made a like attempt at moral considerations...

[John_Clements]

Wow. Great question. That's been an area of my own research and documentation for sometime. It's all due to 19th century fiction writers and fencers.
I see you are in GA too. Give me an email. We'll talk.

Meanwhile, for some examples of how modern and Victorian era scholars got even the most basic objective facts wrong, see my article here on "What did Medieval Swords Really Weigh?"

JC

[Nathan Dexter]

I,m surprised that nobodies mentioned shakespere, a lot has been caused by his work, if not directly from him, but by people after him who illustrated et cetera. I know there was a post a while ago about a world book picture of a knight being hoisted onto a horse with a crane, and I think it was a shakespere illustration.