Compendium of myths and truths

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
13 Spider Bloody Chain

13 Spider Bloody Chain

Grandmaster Knight
For the sake of folks like Damien, Kissaki and others who are constantly correcting others on misconceptions such as "plate armor slows you down!" and "katanas are t3h cool!!!111", I propose that we compile a collection of silly things that people think about medieval weapons and armor and the truths that debunk them.

Credit to Orgy for his suggestion on improving the text appearances.

Before we begin, we are assuming that the time period is during the Medieval period (or a time period from roughly 800 AD to 1600 AD).

Misconception: Plate mail is a combination of plate armor on a mail backing or a combination of plate armor and mail.

Truth: There is no such thing as plate mail: This term implies that the armor is maille created from plates, which is silly (hats off to Damien for this one). A combo of plate armor and mail would be called "plate and mail". --credit, Damien

Misconception: Katanas are superior to European Medieval swords.

Truth: Katana are not neccesarily better than European Medieval swords. NOTE: Objects in romanized foreign languages are NOT pluralized with an S. (Kudos to Kissaki)

Misconception: Crossbows and longbows could penetrate plate armor, as the latter did during the battle of Agincourt.

Truth: Crossbows and longbows cannot penetrate any plate armor worth its salt. During the beforementioned battle, the French knights sustained high casualties due to the terrain and the chaos and confusion caused by arrows killing horses, not because of the arrows penetrating their armor. --credit, Damien

Truth: The term "chain maille" is reduntant:
"You see, mail is the English version of various similar words used to describe the armour throughout history (usually that would be 'maille'). However, in England the armour was sometimes referred to as 'chain.' These two terms got stuck together by people who don't know any better. What you're effectively saying is "mail mail." So saying either  chain or mail will suffice. Using both words together as some kind of compound word is redundant." - Damien

A handy link to an ARMA article: http://www.thearma.org/spotlight.htm - thanks to Orgy.



Misconception: Medieval plate armor was insanely heavy, restricted movement/agility, and unmounted wearers were sitting ducks.

Truth: People who wore plate armor could move almost as easily and as quickly as an unarmored person, although it did tire wearers more quickly than, say, cloth or perhaps mail. Also, while plate armor is relatively heavy, it is worn in such a way that it does not feel like it is: indeed, plate armor is designed so that the weight is distributed well over the entire body so that the metal feels lighter than it is (as opposed to mail, which sits right on the shoulders and therefore feels a bit like a heavy backpack). --credit, Sahran, Damien

Misconception: Lances used by knights broke after the 1st impact.

Truth: Battle lances did not break as easily as jousting lances did. Jousting lances were designed to break, hence their fragility.



Truth: Celtic swords, while oftentimes beautiful and works of art, were poor combat swords when compared to the later blades made by Norsemen.

Misconception: European swords were immensly heavy, weighing up to 40 pounds.

Truth: European swords were actually more around the 2-6 pound range (anything above 10 pounds would probably be too heavy to be a practical weapon).

Under Scrutiny: Information under this category has yet to be fully confirmed or contradicts one or more pieces of information within this collection.

(Possible) Misconception: Roman "lorica segmenta", or the plate armor used by Romans, was far more effective than mail.

(Possible) Truth: The fact that the lorica segmenta was used for only about 60 years (and the fact that only Romans used it) suggests that it was not as good as people claimed it was. --credit, Damien, Sahran

(Possible) Misconception: The Roman plate armor, the Lorica Segmentata, became obsolete because it was an inferior armor.

(Possible) Truth: The Lorica Segmentata went out of use because of the Roman leadership's decisions rather than the inferiority of the armor. --credit, Destichado

Any more?
 
plate mail :roll:

Broadswords is just a term given to swords over a palms width?

And isn't it "katanas are t3h coolio!!!!111one"?
 
Oops, looks like i haven't been reading up on noobery lately...silly me...

On a more serious note, I thought "Broadsword" was the term given to a military sword wider than a civilian sword? check here: http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,11240.15.html
 
If you are going to go through the trouble of posting something like this, please find some reputable links for the claims made. Look, in a discussion, if an unsupported claim is made, that is less egregious. But to make a specific resource to debunk myths, and not to provide a rationale, is no better than what the people holding them are doing.
 
Actually, Bloody Chain is correct. Broadsword is a term applied by pre-Victorian dandies to any weapon wider in the blade than their pansy little rapiers and smallswords. That means everything from a katana to a scimitar, from a Viking sword to a Napoleonic saber, from a medieval European single-hander to a Scottish basket-hilted claymore, are all broadswords by definition.


 
calandale said:
If you are going to go through the trouble of posting something like this, please find some reputable links for the claims made. Look, in a discussion, if an unsupported claim is made, that is less egregious. But to make a specific resource to debunk myths, and not to provide a rationale, is no better than what the people holding them are doing.
Click to expand...

Good point, I forgot about that...

Heh, speaking of resources, does Damien count as a source? XD

One last thing: could someone find links or books that debunk the myths I mentioned in my first post? I get most of this stuff from the arms/armor experts in this forum, and unfortunately, they often don't post where they got the info from... the best I can do is to post the discussion from which I got the myth and the debunking info.
 
If you are going to go through the trouble of posting something like this, please find some reputable links for the claims made. Look, in a discussion, if an unsupported claim is made, that is less egregious. But to make a specific resource to debunk myths, and not to provide a rationale, is no better than what the people holding them are doing.
Click to expand...

While you make a good point, there is an important counter-point. . .

Not every 'reputable link' is reputable. Just because it's on a website, even a good website, doesn't mean it's true. I've argued, for instance, against information found on ARMA's site (a sword forms article, to be exact, which had some glaring mis-uses of terminology specifically debunked in -other- articles on the same site). Nothing is sure. We can provide sources, but other people can surely provide sources that discredit them. I could use Stone's "Glossary. . ." to discredit half of the ARMA website. Or I could use the ARMA website to discredit the vast majority of Stone's "Glossary. . ."



One last thing: could someone find links or books that debunk the myths I mentioned in my first post? I get most of this stuff from the arms/armor experts in this forum, and unfortunately, they often don't post where they got the info from... the best I can do is to post the discussion from which I got the myth and the debunking info.
Click to expand...

The problem with that is that you're asking people who have been studying the subject for years, probably having read hundreds upon hundreds of books, to cite specific volumes and say "this is here." I honestly don't know a lot of people that can do that out of hand. Even historians spend a huge amount of time when writing a book just looking through other books to find the information so they can cite it. And, without trying to sound like a jerk, I am not committed enough to people I don't even know to spend weeks pouring over the veritable library of military history books I have just to prove I know what I'm talking about. I imagine many people feel the same - it would just be too time consuming to find which volume has which information. Especially considering a large part of this field is cross-referencing and actual live testing of various considerations.
 
Damien said:
One last thing: could someone find links or books that debunk the myths I mentioned in my first post? I get most of this stuff from the arms/armor experts in this forum, and unfortunately, they often don't post where they got the info from... the best I can do is to post the discussion from which I got the myth and the debunking info.
Click to expand...

The problem with that is that you're asking people who have been studying the subject for years, probably having read hundreds upon hundreds of books, to cite specific volumes and say "this is here." I honestly don't know a lot of people that can do that out of hand. Even historians spend a huge amount of time when writing a book just looking through other books to find the information so they can cite it. And, without trying to sound like a jerk, I am not committed enough to people I don't even know to spend weeks pouring over the veritable library of military history books I have just to prove I know what I'm talking about. I imagine many people feel the same - it would just be too time consuming to find which volume has which information. Especially considering a large part of this field is cross-referencing and actual live testing of various considerations.
Click to expand...

Perfectly understandable.

So, the question I find myself asking is...how can we compile all this info and prove to others that we're not pulling this info out of thin air?
 
So, the question I find myself asking is...how can we compile all this info and prove to others that we're not pulling this info out of thin air?
Click to expand...

In about 5, maybe 6 years of doing this I've learned one thing. . . you can't.

You can compile the information, but you cannot prove anything to people who don't want it proven to them. And those that want to learn usually readily accept whatever information you give them. In my not-so-humble opinion the most anyone can do is present the information as they understand it in a succinct, intelligently-laid-out manner that allows the reader to decide for himself if he accepts what the author is saying. Beyond that, you encourage people with a real interest in the subject matter to research it themselves and find their own answers. For people with just a passing interest, an intelligently-written piece of information, stated in a way that makes it clear the author probably knows what he's talking about, is usually enough to satisify.

You usually take what I say as truth, don't'cha?  Case in point.




 
Exactly the problem. But without even stating the sources, we can't judge for ourselves. I know that I have a great deal of 'pieces of information', some of which are probably flat out wrong. There are some fairly easy to discern ones, such as the weight of a sword or of armor, but when it comes to questions such as ring-studded leather armor, so much has been written to support the case, that even if you have sources which discredit it, there are others which look fairly reputable and support it. Basically, I would follow the standard that the only 'reputable' sources would be peer-reviewed journal articles, which in most cases are not freely available.
 
Basically, I would follow the standard that the only 'reputable' sources would be peer-reviewed journal articles, which in most cases are not freely available.
Click to expand...

I'd hardly view those as reputable. To point a fact, nothing is really 'reputable' when examined under a microscope. Think of a book. Anyone can write a book. And the same guy who might write a book with bad information will assuredly have no problem writing a peer-reviewed journal article with bad information. Historians generally don't like to directly contradict one another, so you won't see a lot of them going "So and so is utterly wrong, what a big dumb-face."

Ignoring the availability of resources, it still all comes back to what I mentioned above - the total lack of time or desire for anyone with the relevant knowledge to compile a list of what can be found where.

 
The list would be useful for random members coming in and saying "is this true" and getting responses from other members who know. Invariably, that would turn into an argument though. Yeah, I'd say this thread probably won't turn out all that well, either way. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's not worth giving it a shot, either. You just gotta go into it under the presumption that it would be a thread largely of informed opinions rather than a compiled super-list of sources.

 
Another problem you have here is your not defining any specific period. Generalisations don't really work too well at this sort of thing, especially when talking about arms. Pretty much all of military history regarding weapons follows the same pattern - a weapon is developed, a defence is developed against that weapon, a new weapon is developed to overcome that defence ad infinitum (pretty basic, but you get the idea).
Hence it's impossible to make a sweeping statement like "crossbow's couldn't penetrate plate" since they probably could, until the armoursmith's found ways of creating plate that could resist a crossbow. Same with plate slowing you down - early pieces probably would, until they developed designs which allowed greater flexibility.
 
This isn't really a "misconception". Its only a term after all.

How about the weight of plate and chain mail and all the myths associated.
Click to expand...


So if I called a mack truck a sports car, I wouldn't be wrong? Yes, a miconception includes believing a term applies that doesn't, or using improper terminology. By the way. . "chain mail" and its alternates (chainmail, chain maille, chain maile) is also a misapplication.

You see, mail is the English version of various similar words used to describe the armour throughout history (usually that would be 'maille'). However, in England the armour was sometimes referred to as 'chain.' These two terms got stuck together by people who don't know any better. What you're effectively saying is "mail mail." So saying either chain or mail will suffice. Using both words together as some kind of compound word is redundant.


Another problem you have here is your not defining any specific period. Generalisations don't really work too well at this sort of thing
Click to expand...

In my opinion it's enough to simply make caveats to statements. For instance: "Swords do not go through armour. Except the estoc, which was known to be thrust into weakened plates and between the links of mail."


a weapon is developed, a defence is developed against that weapon, a new weapon is developed to overcome that defence ad infinitum (pretty basic, but you get the idea).
Click to expand...

It's interesting to note that many military historians are now rejecting this general sweep of military history. Apparently there's a ton of factors not considered therein, like the development of the rapier - which is totally contrary to this scheme. Anyway - not being argumentative, I just think it's really interesting that what you wrote there is how most people have viewed it for a long time, but for the last maybe 5 or 10 years that theory has been under serious scrutiny and debate.


Hence it's impossible to make a sweeping statement like "crossbow's couldn't penetrate plate" since they probably could, until the armoursmith's found ways of creating plate that could resist a crossbow.
Click to expand...

Not really. The statement 'crossbows couldn't penetrate plate' is entirely correct. So long as the reader understands that 'plate' refers to medieval plate harness, of course, and not early plate like bronze cuirasses. By the time armoursmiths were -capable- of making plate, their craft was already advanced enough that crossbows simply didn't stand a chance. Crossbows had enough problems just getting through mail.

Of course, every statement of 'cannot' or 'can' should always be presumed to include the words "with the occasional exception." I'm sure at some point or another a quarrel slammed into a weak point in a breastplate and managed to pierce it, if only to the padding. It's just the exception to the rule, and an extremely infrequent one.


Same with plate slowing you down - early pieces probably would, until they developed designs which allowed greater flexibility.
Click to expand...

Again, this would be a faulty assumption. The way plate armour developed assured that it never had the need to go 'upwards' in the flexibility department. You see, the beginnings of plate armour were limb defenses. They developed slowly, not covering the joints at first, and so not limiting mobility. Then something would be added to cover a joint, and would be flexible and mobile. Eventually the breastplate was added (before that the central defense was mail and/or a coat-of-plates). By the time the plate harness shows up, the craft of creating the various pieces that would make up a harness was already far enough along that armoursmiths fully well knew how to avoid decreased mobility.





Here's a misconception that has always been popular among even historians, but is now rapidly losing ground: Swords were not primary weapons, nor were they exceptionally common on the battlefield.

This statement is false. If we really look at what is intended by the term "primary weapon" we quickly see that swords were primary weapons. A knight would charge in with his lance, and then draw his sword for the largest portion of combat. How is that not 'primary?' Swords were -highly- valued weapons, and in an era where your very life depended on things of that sort, it's ridiculous to think that warriors would spend any amount money on what is, effectively, some kind of status symbol weapon when they could get something more useful.

The sword, by all accounts, is an extremely effective weapon, and to think it was somehow relegated to a 'last resort' weapon is not only rather silly, but totally unsupported by history.

As for the latter part of the statement, about the uncommonality of swords on the field: The pure amount of swords found washes that notion away quickly enough, as does the fact that swords are incredibly commonly occuring weapon in literature of the period, as well as artwork of the period. Surely people living IN the time knew well enough about how common such weapons were. Likewise, every decree we know of that talks about what soldiers should be equipped with what items specifically mentions swords. They all do. By those accounts, a huge amount of soldiers were expected to have some kind of sword with them, especially toward the later Medieval period. If swords were so rare, why would competant men expect ignoble, grunt-class soldiers to each own one?

So this misconception is one that someone just decided was true one day, because it truly has no historical support whatsoever. Swords, by all historical evidence, showed up quite often on battlefields and were, indeed, primary weapons.


However, this is only true of Europe and the Near/Middle East, as well as, but to a lesser extent, China.


 
Damien said:
a weapon is developed, a defence is developed against that weapon, a new weapon is developed to overcome that defence ad infinitum (pretty basic, but you get the idea).
Click to expand...

It's interesting to note that many military historians are now rejecting this general sweep of military history. Apparently there's a ton of factors not considered therein, like the development of the rapier - which is totally contrary to this scheme. Anyway - not being argumentative, I just think it's really interesting that what you wrote there is how most people have viewed it for a long time, but for the last maybe 5 or 10 years that theory has been under serious scrutiny and debate.
Click to expand...

The basic idea is correct, though, and is just as true today as it was 1000 years ago. You do have odd branches like the rapier and dress swords, but warfare is a pragmatic affair, and for the most part it is easy to see causes and effects. No rule without exceptions, of course, and every evolutionary path is bound to spawn evolutionary dead ends. But I don't think the theory is due for replacement any time soon.
 
Damien said:
This isn't really a "misconception". Its only a term after all.

How about the weight of plate and chain mail and all the myths associated.
Click to expand...


So if I called a mack truck a sports car, I wouldn't be wrong? Yes, a miconception includes believing a term applies that doesn't, or using improper terminology.
Click to expand...

Bad analogy. Sports cars exist. Rather, calling something a sports truck seems more appropriate (even though they are doing so now).

As to rapiers, I was under the impression that they served a purpose similar to that which you note for the estoc, but for a less military environment - i.e. they allowed the best chance of of dealing with a moderately armored foe, for the least cost, in terms of weight. Probably just talking out of my ass though.
 
Damien said:
As for the latter part of the statement, about the uncommonality of swords on the field: The pure amount of swords found washes that notion away quickly enough, as does the fact that swords are incredibly commonly occuring weapon in literature of the period, as well as artwork of the period. Surely people living IN the time knew well enough about how common such weapons were. Likewise, every decree we know of that talks about what soldiers should be equipped with what items specifically mentions swords. They all do. By those accounts, a huge amount of soldiers were expected to have some kind of sword with them, especially toward the later Medieval period. If swords were so rare, why would competant men expect ignoble, grunt-class soldiers to each own one?

So this misconception is one that someone just decided was true one day, because it truly has no historical support whatsoever. Swords, by all historical evidence, showed up quite often on battlefields and were, indeed, primary weapons.


However, this is only true of Europe and the Near/Middle East, as well as, but to a lesser extent, China.
Click to expand...

Damien, by "Not primary weapon" I think they mean "Not everyone had a sword". Swords were expensive, and hard to replace or repair. The common medieval footsoldier would have a spear, or axe, am I wrong? The sword has always been the sign of the wealthy. It has always been a prized posession. So are brand-name jeans today. But does everyone own brand-name jeans? No, some people buy generic brand jeans. Obviously, if someone DID have a sword, he WOULD use it as his primary weapon, but they mean that swords were not the most commonplace item on the battlefield.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Expressing myself about the state of the game.
Replies
11
Views
476
badman
LDominating
Why are Cataphracts and Knights
Replies
8
Views
500
Ningauble
Crisagon
SP - General Noble prisioners
Replies
0
Views
91
Crisagon
Crisagon
Back
Top Bottom