Medieval Depictions of History: Don't Fall for this Trap!
Vložit
- čas přidán 30. 06. 2017
- This is a common trap that I see a lot of people fall in to when researching medieval material culture and arms and armor through the medium of period artwork. Historical artists don't always depict historical events (from their perspective) with the appropriate arms and armor of the time period being painted!
Support the Channel - / knyghterrant
Facebook - / knyghterrant
Pinterest - / knyghterrant
Website - knyghterrant.com
Next you'll be telling us that medieval people didn't really fight against giant snails and rabbits!
No, those are all real. :)
And the monopods and people with no heads but a face on their chest. Those guys were totally real.
Rabbits were definitely a real threat, that's why The Holy hand granade was created - to kill those bloodthirsty beasts.
what about the giant penis dragons?
Would be cool if any illustrator of nowadays would try to re-make illustrations but change them to fit right era. I wonder if anyone done anything like this.
I am always amused when I see medieval or renaissance depections of Biblical events wearing full plate armour.
What? What do you mean Jesus didn't have full plate armour? XD
Honestly it would be kinda cool to see some of those with modern arms.
As someone with an interest in everything (and expertise in nothing), I like to remind myself that I usually know just enough on any given topic to get myself into trouble when someone who actually knows what they're talking about walks into the room. XD
J. Patrick Pote tbf thats when you learn
+Alistair Shaw Yup! I like learning, as I'd wager many people around this corner of the 'tubes do, eh? :)
J. Patrick Pote well hopefully my man!
"I know just enough to get myself in trouble when an expert walks into the room" is an excellent refrain for us dabblers to remember when feeling high and mighty, lol. Thank you for this one, because I will be repeating it to myself, and often.
Yeah, very recognizable. I made that mistake too often before I learned. I hope I learned it now anyway.
I wonder if soldiers/knights in the middle ages scolded people like soldiers do today.
"war is nothing like your damn video games" was instead "war is nothing like your damn paintings"
idk but i think some songs make references to the tragedy of war and that those who talk about all so much do not know how it is, to have a friend who lost his life on the field etc, but its also a bit different bc the ruling elite was generealy more warlike and being involved with war was seen more positive on average, people also kinda feared soldiers like larger bands of them, and there is not this lookin down on soldiers in a way of moral superiority that modern society sometimes does.
especially funny when they're depicting events from the Bible or from classical mythology - what do you mean, Goliath didn't wear full-length mail with a kettle helm??
The bible itself falls for this trap. goliath is described as wearing armour from the 8th century bc. Supposedly he lived some 200-500 years earlier.
I mean, this is the same book that says a dude in the sky created the world in 7 days, and that some other dude fit all of the animals in the world in a boat and subsequently repopulated the world with a crapload of incest after a world encompassing flood (caused by the first dude). The bible is pretty well known for requiring significant suspensions of disbelief, much bigger than just discrepencies in weapon and armor details.
knightshousegames I wasn't going to go there, but yeah, it's not exactly a reliable source of knowledge.
+knightshousegames
[Tips fedora]
knightshousegames it doesn't require much suspended disbelieve. In, I believe, the 10th century it was a commonly held belief that severe storms were the work of men, wizards to be specific, on sky boats that hid in the clouds. So, really when you take into consideration most human believes it's not much of a stretch.
Amateur: I know.
Expert: I think I know... But just in case here is my friend Ted and his friend Kyle, and Jules, our mutual acquaintance from Uni who isn't very sociable, but we all tolerate because he knows more than we want to admit he does. And Jule's first cousin Maggie who is particularly well read on Agincourt, and Maggie's dog... Who is a dog... But he's great. We put our heads together and decided that we don't know, but look at all the stuff we learned while getting to this point.
The irony is that in reality it often is the other way.
In part because you probably *don't know* 😉 that "amateur" literally describes someone who loves what they do, i.e. passionate personal investment and devotion to the activity. While experts often prioritize ascending in the ranks of the establishment through intellectual materialism or worse.
i've always thought this convention in medieval art was sort of hilarious. imagine if a historian today drew a picture of the revolutionary war, and all the soldiers were fighting with machine guns, helicopters, and tanks.
I also wonder how future generations will depict our time
Also even if an image was made in the same timeline it can also have flaws.
Reasons:
1) Its a piece of art, so the artist may use alot of fantasy elements (and believe me, they will)
2) There is a high chance that the painter was not on the battlefield. And was just assigned to make the painting with just a simple context in mind (lacking some background in some area)
3) The leader of the winner side will demand some glorious image (fantasy again) of his forces and himself.
Bayeux springs to mind
Chain-mail hotpants at the Battle of Crecy... That's all I can see now...
Kinda makes sense if you think about it. Artists of that time couldn't google reference examples of historical equipment of the time period they were painting. If they wanted to know what soldiers and their gear looked like, they had to look at soldiers of their own time, or if they were really doing due dilligence, weapons and armor from their local blacksmith. And thats like going to your local gun shop and asking to see a gun from 130 years ago; they probably don't have one in stock.
If anyone had any doubts about the participation of the Hobbits in a historical battle, just take a look at this Crécy painting
Maybe it was a kid..?
Heh. Imagine if somebody did that same thing today. Illustrating a battle from a century ago with current arms and tanks.
WWI was won by the Allies after the US joined the war with their unstoppable M1 Abrams and F22 Raptor, showing the importance of tanks and airpower for future wars...
This is common for the tools of war. I.e Horses rarely showing up in war games, automatic weapons for WW1 firearms in video games. Movies and tracer rounds. Depiction of engagements tends to be awful at all levels.
Napolean would look even more dashing standing on the turret of a tank.
Widow Peak
Battle of Kursk, Leopard 2s vs Armatas
As stated before, that pretty much happens in movies/tv, especially with a medieval setting. Vikings is a good terrible example.
That is why I consider manuscriptminiatures.com so useful, because the date tagged to the image or depiction is that of the estimated date of creation of said image or depiction, not of what it represents.
sometimes... you should always click though an image to the holding library and see what date they give it as well. Sometimes there is a conflict.
Certainly a very good point worth remembering. Related to this, I have seen people make the similarly problematic argument that swords could cut through helmets and other pieces of plate armour, based on illustrations such as those in the Morgan Bible or Codex Manesse showing precisely this being done. In the latter case, I suppose it's not so much the conventional anachronism you describe in the video as much as it is artistic license and hyperbole: the 13th century equivalent of a Hollywood action movie, if you will.
Funny enough, I photoshopped a picture from the Morgan Bible to include characters from LotR with Legolas saying "Their armor is weak everywhere"
I don't think it's pure artistic convention, IMO it's more like a scope snipe in modern times. There is one recorded instance of a sniper shooting another sniper through his scope in modern history, but you see it in almost every bit of sniper media, because it's just that cool.
Similarly, a guy probably did cut through someone's helmet - maybe it was a really badly made helmet, maybe they were charging at each other, maybe it was both - and once painters heard about it, they went "Man, that's cool, I'm gonna put that EVERYWHERE".
MartinGreywolf And that kids is why you shouldn't mistake your Halloween armor for the real stuff and use it on the battlefield. You'll cause misinformation.
That's a very important point you're making!
You can even see early medieval depictions of the battle between David and Goliath being portrayed with early medieval arms and armour.
another thing I noticed in japanese portraits is quite the opposite of what you talked about. there are many pictures of nobles mostly, that have completely out of date swords with them.
Louis Rudy
Yes in Japan is the complete opposite.
Because depicting a warrior with an Oyoroi was a symbol of their classical period and golden age.
This is true for most of the 19th century Ukiyoe with warriors, they all worn old style of armor.
Even in the 16th century was common by the way, some artwork of Sekigahara don't show arquebus at all and the armors were quite old style
Fascinating, I had no idea!
Luca Nic i also suspect that they were depicted with their most valuable swords which were handed down through generations, therefore beeing outdated.
Louis Rudy
Yes it's quite possible.
However (Even if I have to say that I'm a big fan of Japanese swords) I think that we all agree that is quite hard to date a Japanese swords without a detailed observation, since they look all "similar".
The thing is that this was done for real:
Luis le Frog, one of the first european in Japan, underline that old swords were valued more than new ones in the 16th century.
This might be weird in our perspective, but there is a very pragmatic reason: during the 16th century, the demands of arms&armours was so high that super cheap blades started to be sold "en masse", and it was quite difficult to establish the quality before buying it.
So an old sword was more likely to be better than a new one!! And then It was seen as an heritage and so on.
While for armors, they didn't actually use older models, because they were too outdated, especially the Oyoroi they are wearing in the artworks, not even closer to the protection given by the Japanese plate armour of the period.
So, to sum up they were depicted with the past material culture, however while for swords it was likely to be an accurate depiction, for armor it was not accurate at all, more symbolic than anything else.
Sorry for being that long, hope to be informative!! Cheers
This phenomenon is very apparent in illustrated Bibles, which I've seen depicting people wearing armor and clothing as much as 1,500 years off the mark. To be fair, though, plate armor does look more romantic than robes and sandals.
Yeah, that's exactly where I properly noticed this phenomenon. As a kid, I could think "Eh, it's all Medieval" but I _knew_ that Biblical events were supposed to have happened during the Roman empire and earlier, and in quite hot places, so you wouldn't see them looking like Medieval knights of any kind.
Alex Moss you mean my main dude Jesus didn't rock a sweet ass set of plate armor?
Yep, that's where I first noticed in high school, looking at Gozzoli's _journey of the magi_ 1459-61
Ive heard that apparently the most common modern depiction of Jesus is actually based on Cesare Borgia
Noah Weisbrod Not really. There are depictions of Christ from the 5th and 6th centuries where he's already quite recognisable with long hair, beard, etc. It remained the way Jesus was depicted in Byzantine art. It took a while for it to become the universal model, but most depictions of Jesus from the 13th century onwards, even in the Catholic west, show him with long hair and a beard.
I know what you mean by the illusion of knowledge. I knew someone who was a good example. He had this real bee in his bonnet about the colour black. He was convinced that even in the 18th century, black dyes hadn't been invented, and he would have a go at both historical depictions in media and re-enactors that wore things like black scabbards and belts, or clothing with black in them up to and including the battle of Culloden in 1745. It didn't matter that I could show him period art showing people wearing black going back to the 15th century. It didn't matter that I could show him period text going back to the 17th century with explicit recipes for making your own black dye. It didn't matter that he didn't have one shred of primary evidence for his theory. He knew what he knew and that was that, and by God everybody else was going to know as well.
I've also heard something similar about mordant for black leather dye and pre-15th century artwork showing black leather by convention only. I'm still researching into it.
Yes, this guy used the artistic convention argument too. Personally (and this is my opinion only) I never thought it held much weight for the following reason: Artistic conventions exist to aid communication by using general archetypes in place of individual specifics. Consistently depicting something as black (or any other colour) when it is _never_ that colour in real life makes no sense. It would be like if we had an artistic convention of cartoon trees being magenta. Obviously we don't, because no tree is that colour. We use green because while an enormous range of other colours of tree exist, green is the most common; it's the archetypal example that quickly says to the viewer "this is a tree".
Now it could be argued that the _pigment_ was not originally black and changed colour over time (this is in fact the case with some illuminations that used silver to depict metal for example), and I think that would make sense. However I haven't seen it put forward seriously as an argument for depictions of materials with a non-metallic appearance like cloth or leather.
At the end of the day it's really, really hard to prove a negative, so it's always dangerous to say "this absolutely never happened". I'm not sure exactly when in history black became available, but I do think that there's evidence to suggest (but not necessarily prove) it was around, and certainly enough that you shouldn't be confident enough to go around telling off living history people for having inaccurate kit just because their hat or belt is black, or writing tracts about the historical inaccuracy of a TV show solely because one character has a black baldric, especially if the setting is as late as the mid-18th century.
I don't know how accurate it is, but I remember hearing in a documentary that prior to the invention of various synthetic dyes during the industrial revolution it was expensive to make a black dye that stayed black, but to extrapolate from that there were no black dyes at all prior to the 18th century is mental. If nothing else the fact that Dominican monks were known as Black-friars in colloquial English for their distinctive black habits ought to give a clue...
It started when a living history group banned black clothing for lower status. They did it not because it's wrong, but its rare, and if you gave free rein of colours to a demographic largely of goths, bikers and metalheads it would get massively overrepresented (and does in some groups today).
People who didn't know this rationale only knew that "high end" re-enactors say don't wear black, and I've heard a wide range of total bollocks over the years where people grasp for reasons to justify it.
Basically, black was totally possible, not too expensive (think monks), but nobody thought it looked badass or cool so weren't as desperate to wear black as modern people.
What's really fun is looking at Renaissance art depicting scenes from Classical history and legend.
"I didn't know the Athenians had complex-hilted 15th-century-style cut-and-thrust swords when they fought the Spartans! Not to mention slashed puffy sleeves and hosiery!"
Yes, *interest* in the classical past was resurgent in the European Renaissance, but detailed material *data* was still mostly hidden. The visual connections to the Classical past that Renaissance artists did have access to were mostly confined to fragments of monumental architecture and (often nude or heroically stylized) sculpture. As far as the vast majority of material culture, folks just had to use their imagination based on their own time period which, luckily for them, was already the normal way of depicting the past anyway. Ideas derived from the Classical period (as they interpreted them) had huge impacts, but they had little data concerning practical information.
Luckily, the vast majority of the general public today is well-educated enough to be struck by such depictions as obvious anachronisms, and exposure to such images helps make a useful point. However, the real danger lies in people looking at art which has an artist and his scene separated by generations or centuries, yet the general public misses the anachronism because both are in the same "period" (ie Medieval). This is why educational demonstrations such as those which your group does which display the dramatically different stages that things such as arms and armor actually went through from the Migration Period all the way through to the verge of the Early Modern Period are so useful. Anglo-Saxon hordes and Proto-Renaissance art are equally "Medieval."
I'm really gaining traction, in my own mind at least, that the term Medieval needs to be retired. It covers too big of a time period with too many internally distinct eras and is too ideologically loaded and arbitrary to be useful without bringing all kinds of misunderstandings along with it.
Maybe something like Roman Era>Migration Era>Early Foundational>Late Foundational>Early Modern>Modern, would be more useful than what we have now which literally translates out of the Scholarese as High Point>Middle Stuff>Return to High Point>Modern.
This is also true for ''Romantic art'' from the 17th-18th and 19th centuries. For instance, pictures of Columbus landing on San Salvador, equipped with clothing and armour from the 1600's. Looks ridiculous, but sadly those paintings are used in almost every history book - and in this way, many people get the wrong image in their head.
Yeah, Columbus landed in the Caribbean Islands in 1492 AD. So the way we commonly depict Columbus' men as wearing Morions and Burgonets, and wielding Cutlasses and Flintlock Muskets is very anachronistic. This kind of equipment is something more akin to the early 17th Century. Definitely not the 15th Century.
At the time of Columbus' discovery, it was still technically the Middle Ages. These people should be wearing Sallets and Armets, and wielding Longswords and Matchlock Arquebuses. In fact, the famous Great Helm that we associate with the Crusades was still technically in service during Columbus' time. Here is a 15th Century model Great Helm... myarmoury.com/images/features/pic_spot_ghelm27.jpg
Exactly, right on point! Thanks for the reply.
Dunning-Kruger Effect, every reenactor know that, when trying to explain some visitors that the series (for example) "The Borgias" is not historical accurate. And we find that sometimes in other reenactors too, old and young.
Hi Ian. Art is a massive issue so very happy you did this video.
We're truly blessed to have you. This is AMAZING information to keep in mind.
As I see it, the main problem with the accessibility and distillation of expert information is the group of people who learn a little and opine a lot. The Dunning-Kruger effect. The abundance of information has led many people to believe being a historian is as simple as watching enough CZcams videos, which is really just being a lazy student of history. I see it a lot in CZcams comments, you also see it even amongst "top" intellectuals. Thomas Sowell wrote about Ivy League professors opining on topics they aren't experts in. They make all sorts of reaches that end up in the media as "experts say X." Sowell gives numerous examples of this taking place, sometimes egregious to the point of being harmful. A degree can become a license of authority. It's not just laymen who suffer from this!
I get excited when I learn new things, but I have to constantly assess my own biases and tendencies to form my own opinions without a real foundation to do so. This is a difficult aspect of studying history. How do you go about the study of primary and secondary sources? It's damn hard to separate what I know from what I think I know. That's my biggest struggle with studying history. It's easy to stop asking yourself the right questions!
This reminds me of what an engineer friend of mine told me about how defense contacts work. There is the book you give to your boss and then there's the REAL book you give to your boss.
I would love to see more various artworks and discussion. When I was a kid, we were told that our interpretation of the pictures is really up to us, because no one knows exactly how the art was intended. Much like modern day cartoon collages of modern day common environments (where's waldo at a construction site), it does appear as though these medievil cartoons immediately throw "realism" out the window in order to portray a bunch of ideas (for comedy, discussion, or dramatization) to their target audience. So, one major problem is, the artists did not plan for their works to be interpreted by today's historians in hopes that we would learn specific history about one battle or another. The books and artworks of that era were designed to be of interest to persons of that time, who already had "word of mouth" history and "pop culture" artistic fashions. what you DO see in the picture is a bunch of imagery, that if you were keen to the jokes and common stereotypes and taunts of the era, you might feel it means "this" or "that",,, and arranged as such to be a popular image to be shared at "cool parties",,,,, and what you do NOT see in the image,,,, is any practical history of any kind as it might relate to the specific subject matter. We see what publishers from the era thought would sell. In a kind of way, looking at this picture to understand the battle of Crecy is like looking at a poster to understand a movie. Look how beautiful this costume is,,, and can't you wait for the fighter battle!!!
Another great and informative video as always Ian, keep em coming!
You are 100% right: medieval people had no awareness whatsoever of the fact that material culture changes over time, that came in the Renaissance when they started to imitate Roman art. The funniest is when the medieval artists illustrate scenes from the battle of Troy, from the battles of Alexander the Great or from Tite Live's history of the Romans - they all appear as regular medieval knights in combat, sometimes with chariots or elephants, because that is what is in the text, but still in medieval costume and armour!
Holy shit is that beard majestic. 10/10 would beard again!
lolsquad That beard is worthy of the gods! Hemmdal would be proud!
When I'm looking at medieval depictions of armour I find myself going "That looks like Ian, Ian already did that video, that also looks like Ian, oh look, Ian!"
Medieval manuscripts are basically "Where's Ian?"
I love that all those archers wear knee protection but no leg armor besides that.
It makes me remember a famous Quote from skyrim that i am sure i dont have to repeat here.
I think the biggest trap of looking at medieval artwork is how often tournament armor turns up. In early 15th century work you'll see jousting helms everywhere and throughout the artwork great amounts of flowing robes and fancy crests that I sincerely doubt would be worn into battle for both their crippling sensory deprivation on the tournament helms and being both a waste of money and a grappling risk for any crests/excessive fabric decoration. Such as those 15th century fighting treatises depicting men wearing sleeves so long you could trip on them.
Thanks for making this video, I think by making it you are doing the historical community a service even assuming you were not the first to make these types of videos.
Thank you, and I really didn't expect you! :)
Nobody did!
Well done! As a collector of swords and weapons, and also a Sculptor, I did my Fine Arts Degree thesis on 'Art of Arms and Armour' in an age before the Internet, when knowledge had to be garnered from other collectors, and Libraries; and I was surprised how many contradictions and mistakes there were amongst so-called "Experts"! Now I see so much mis-information being propagated on the Internet by the "Arm-chair Experts", I wonder how one is able to sort the Truth from the suppositions and theories, fantasy computer games, and the just plain junk. At least we get to see more actual images of the historical items these days!
Excellent video, and I agree 100% with +Knyght Errant's points, what I would like to add however, is that you can sometimes tell the age of a drawing, and whether it's contemporary to the era you want it to be, by the style of drawing, you can clearly see the difference between the c. 1400/1410 and the c. 1470s paintings purely by how the figures were drawn. I would add that this is *_*not*_* an absolute foolproof way, but it can give you a primary indication of roughly what timeframe the drawing was made.
I'm glad you mention this, I did my graduate degree in Medieval History and we run into this a lot in our field. Nicely done. K.S. MA.
Just found your channel and I like what I see so far. Was wondering if at some point you are going to tackle some of the early use of firearms?
Weirdly, after discussing what the archers are wearing in the 1470's images, some of the fabric covered breastplates (single piece, only waist up, no flare at the bottom edge) appear to be a style that is from 1400 or earlier, presumably renovated from old stock with newer styling for cheap archers gear.
Strange if the artist is incidentally showing pieces from the correct period, but only how they look having been adapted decades later. Like tanks in some old WW2 movies.
Hi, Ian. Long time watcher, first time commenter. Love your channel, and I really appreciate your informative and interesting videos. Just wanted to say, I don't know if you're aware, but there is actually a term for the phenomenon of "not knowing what you don't know." It's called the Dunning-Kruger Effect. Ever since I learned about it, I've found it fascinating because you see instances of this from all kinds of people in all kinds of fields and topics, and just being aware of it is often very helpful in keeping oneself objective when doing research. As knowledgeable a person as you are, you may well already be familiar with it, but I thought I'd say something just in case. Thanks again for the great videos, and have a nice day!
You went halfway with your clarification of "amateur" not necessarily being derogatory. Originally it was positive, because the word means someone who loves what they do. Thus there is also the term "amateur professional", which is a preferrable kind of professional.
5:16 A man definitely born into the elite. 😄
Well put Ian. Thanks
You had my like and Sub after that exceptional foreword.
I didn't know this. This was very interesting. Good one.
"and then, King Arthur pulled out an AK -47 out of the rock"
Ah yes, the fable of Excelipoor. ("Excalibur" in Old English.)
bur
It's the same with religious arts. You see the 3 wise men in late gothic style clothes or a roman soldier in a plate armour. Would be nice to copy this and form/ draw a picture of a medieval/ renaissance setting with modern clothing and modern interpretations.
Have been done many times in cinema and theatre.
In fact Shakespeare was done in 'modern' dress
Thanks a lot for the video!
Now I won't fall for traps like that.
I believe you already talked about that in previous videos, but thanks a lot for dedicated video.
The analogy I always use is a modern painter depicting the civil war with the same kit we used in Iraq.
Good tip. Thank you sir.
I just keep on thinking back to Baz Luhrmann's Romeo + Juliet. It's slightly hilarious when people try to adapt Shakespeare to modern times, but I guess it's in line with how they did it back then.
I, am a true amateur Sir Knight, and believe me, I take NO offense!! (BTW: In the original, i.e., French-origins of the word, it means, "One whom ADORES a certain subject, learning ALL that one can about said subject. KNOWING-all-along, that one does not have, and, may never have, a true expertise in the subject, but, one cares not, due to one's adoration, of said subject!)
Many Thanks, Sir Knight, for your presentation!
Ian, amateur (from Latin amare via French) literally means, someone who loves. Nothing to do with professional or layman per se. I actually find this is a very beautiful word and think it sad it's meaning has mostly degraded to dabbler or hobbyist nowadays. Amateur is rather a sort of badge of honour to me - you love something! What is better than that?
Yes, one of many common misinterpretations. Surely in the nature of things - Non-amateur professionals would want to slander amateurs because they fear their potential in becoming competition.
Alright. I think it's time you team up with a writer and make a book specifically for reenactors.
"The Hitchiker's Guide to Reenacting".
Basically just make a book with different sections on arms and armor, and how to recognize the minute details based on historical finds, common misconceptions, and featuring a measured sense of knowing you could be wrong, (A rare trait for many people), with sources for all things like you do in your videos.
I know I would buy it.
(If you didn't decide to team up with me to help write it... *Hint-Hint*)
By the way, I'm completely serious here. I would totally write this with you if you wanted. No charge.
I want to help share this knowledge just like you do with your videos, but help condense it into a nicely digestible format for new reenactors, as well as experienced reenactors that would like to refresh themselves on the basics.
I mean, how many people talk about the Met Cuirass when referring to Corrazina without knowing it was made up of different pieces of separate armor?
6:10 "...not always consistent but in this case it is..."
Is that crossbowman in the bottom left wearing chainmail boxer shorts?!! :S
They're called mail brayettes. Here's an example - www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/34847
Now maille bikinis aren't that unplausible) Was it specifically German thing?
finally someone is talking about this topic!
You still see the same problem today, although, to a lesser degree in movie and tv. Sometimes you see the wrong kind of uniforms, the wrong weapons, the complete wrong plane, etc.
kokofan50 yeah, but you don't normally see a Civil War movie completely changed to Desert Storm era, though that would be an interesting experiment. 🤔
is it not called Sherlock holmes?
That pun at the beginning though. :P
I feel like this video might have been sparked by a recent comment I left on the HEMAA page about sword and shield use in armor. To which my argument was that if we cannot trust images per say, (such as depictions of knights in harness wielding a sword and shield) then how could we possibly even think we know what fencing masters meant, since the writings alone are so vague we are forced to rely heavily on the illustrations to determine how the techniques were performed?
What do you mean they didn't use AR-15s in the Battle of Hastings?
Another issue is that art itself is very often inaccurate even when it is contemporary to what it's representing. Roman art has that issue.
Guess it's time to re-enact Waterloo in WW1 uniforms! :-)
i once got into a discussion with someone on this very topic, they also mentioned that some artworks also might tend to depict armies in more standardized equipment then wouldve been actually been used and that sometimes armies were dressed up, as in the painting show more of the armies in a higher level of armor and equipment then much of it wouldve actually had. and that it might fail to depict how common older forms of armor might be in later periods. i mean even if it is outdated a 15th century harness in the early 16th is probably better then nothing or a lesser new armor. sorta like some places do with their workstation pcs they dont get the latest and greatest but a couple generations old tried and true and you know the capabilities and all the weaknesses and cost isnt necessarily as high.
it would be interesting to hear your thoughts on his ideas. personally i believe it could be true but i havent examined enough illuminations to be able to give a fair assessment.
In many cases artwork is intentionally symbolic or representative of something and isn't necessarily literal. A lot of people _want_ to treat it like a photograph but that's just simply not how it works. It also varies from one piece of artwork to another, so what's true for one piece may not be true for the next. Every piece needs to be scrutinized individually with respect to its context. The idea that older equipment was used by less wealthy individuals beyond its original intended service life is documented. A lot of artwork tends to focus on the more 'well-to-do' individuals perhaps because they're the ones commissioning the artwork. Sometimes they do make an effort to show older stuff. From my observation it tends to error on the side of 'too uniform, and too high-end' to be representative of what really was, but that all needs to be balanced by other sources like inventories, muster rolls, chronicles, wills, archaeological evidence etc..
thats a pretty fair assessment id say. i know about alot of the artwork tending to focus on the wealthy i just wasnt sure if any focused on those of more common status, however i have seen references to older arms and armor being used in later period in other documents.
i was just curious as i tend to find alot of people fall on one side of the fence or the other, some say art can be useful in some of the same ways a photograph can if you first determine the pieces credibility, basically some are more accurate then others and only reply on those that are proven to be accurate. where as the others tend to say we should just discredit artwork simply because its all unreliable. personally i just take it all with a grain of salt as history is uncertain and often changing with new evidence and do my research on a piece before i decide if its reliable or not.
I learned that after searching through some Arthurian Legends' material.
they should do this again, i want to see the battle of hasting with soldiers wealding automatic rifles!
Thanks To You Sir!!(BTW: A fine beard; reminds me of my Grand-Father!!)
Is there a really good collection of period illustrations from the early Hundred Years War period? Early 14th Century Western Europe and Northern Italy is an important but I feel neglected period.
For the pictures out-of-time I have a good example from germany. In 333 BC Alexander the great fought persian king Darius at Issos and won. More than 1800 years later a german painter Albrecht Altdorfer created "Die Alexanderschlacht". It is a great painting, but not very accurate to greek and persian outfits. It´s more about knights in 1528. so artists have to modernize their products because of:
1. the audience is used to the look of their time periode and want a familiar outlook and
2. most time the artist would´nt even know the correct style, color or weaponry of past times. So why bother?
From my perspective - I don't reenact medieval times, I do 2nd World War Finnish and Viking era Finnish stuff, but I dabble in Medieval things out of general curiosity - the biggest problem is not the illustrations.
From my experience, majority of amateur historians do realize that the paintings etc. don't always correspond to what was used. Instead, they look around and see other reenactors and even stores selling "researched" armour and items in use by other reenactors whom they perceive to be more experienced in these things. This causes some mistakes, or reenactorisms, to get repeated time and time again. I've already learnt from your videos over the time to look for some of these common mistakes, but others may not be so familiar with the subject.
Just to point out, I don't know any legit reenactors of the Medieval period besides you and I don't even know where to look for good, detailed information on how to and where from to get armour parts for specific impressions and what kind of sources to trust.
This is one of the those video topics you could tackle - either in a series or in a short form - at some point.
Anyways, thank you very much for the good quality content, I am happy Patreon supporter of yours and a fellow historian who likes to share factual, researched info like you do. :)
Good example would be the Maciejowski Bible depicting Biblical events as if the characters were 13th century Europeans.
Hey Ian, since I seem to be having a bit of trouble with this myself. Do you happen to know if the red cross of Saint George was still being used and worn (on surcoats and banners/flags) in the mid/late 13th century? If not, when did they stop using it?
Evan The St. George's cross was used by English soldiers during the 100 Years War. It eventually became the primary flag of England. You can see English football fans paint their face with it during international tournaments, and it is one of the constituents of the Union Jack.
Okay, thanks!
St. George's cross was also used by the Swabian league during the late 15th and early 16th century
Is Osprey any good? I heard that it's quite well researched, but how good of a source to look at is it?
TrollDragomir I find it really varies. Some are high-quality and clearly well-researched, while others appear to rely on outdated secondary sources. One I read about the Landsknechts was poorly written and full of grammatical errors, something that the publisher should have prevented via proofreading.
Like KorKhan89 said, it's a very mixed bag. Unfortunately, when it comes to Osprey it's one of those situations where if you don't already know the information, it's hard to tell when you're reading a bad Osprey book vs a good one, which is kind of self-defeating.
Small related question about 14th century armor, since the video is sort of related. Often when I look at artwork of the mid 14th I see aventails covered and decorated with textiles (manuscriptminiatures.com/media/manuscriptminiatures.com/original/1398-15.jpg) this is just something I don't see a whole lot of in reproductions or modern representations, I wonder if this was a commonly done thing.
They're called 'vrysouns' at least in some period sources. I don't really know why re-enactors don't bother making them, but they are pretty rare in the sources as well.
Question: Are there any cases of artists from the past TRYING to make their material culture older, but messing up (badly) as modern reenactment sometimes does?
Google also mixes really bad information in with the good information--so you can end up mistaking one for the other.
Sometimes when trying to depict the Romans we see what a lot of people refer to as 'alla romana' styling, which isn't really reflective of actual roman armor and dress, but it's more of what the Medieval person _imagined_ Roman equipment to look like.
Ok so speaking of artwork there's an effigy where the depictions is someone wear hourglass gauntlets breast plate over a jupon. They still have full plate legs but I was wondering would an arm harness be worn under or would only the jupom and mail protect the arms
It's my personal belief that a plate arm can still function properly under a bag-sleeved jupon, but we don't know for sure.
Yet the first painting has shields, which confuses me, as while they may still have existed (Wood has sock absorbent qualities and if you;re going to deflect a hammer blow, i submit that between wood and metal, you choose wood, they are very common in the illimination,
Is it possible to link a proper illumination or art depicting arms and armor of the 1340s to complete the explanation here? You've shown two anachronistic examples of illumination but not one of what combatants in Crecy would have worn.
effigiesandbrasses.com/search/?year=1335&year_end=1355&country=8&country=9&tags=&institution=&name=&costumes=1
Do you think that idea for "representing something older" could be aplied to Morgan Bible, where it shows Goliath wearing iron schynbalds while most of the warriors aren't using surcoats or comtemporary armour?
Goliath is a special case because he has a pretty explicit description in the bible. 1 Samuel 17:6 "He had bronze greaves on his legs..." As a result, most depictions of Goliath in Medieval picture bibles always include his greaves because the imagery is following the text.
But there is something to believe that schynbalds were known by this date? They could use mail chausses as they did in the rest of the armor (if I'm aware, he used scale armour made from bronze too)
It's hard to precisely date the use of schynbalds. They appear in other contemporary manuscripts without the context of Goliath, like the Trinity Apocalypse for example. They also begin to appear on the ocassional effigy around the same time, but don't become more common in artwork or documentary sources for another few decades. Virtually all early appearances of schynbalds are worn over regular mail chausses as a supplementary defense.
wikipedia seriously tells you under the photo its from the 15 century.
Create a website, with links to your videos
so is it worth looking for art sources created at the date you want to study, irrespective of the subject.
Yes, but you also need to be very aware of what the subject _is_ even in those sources, because that can have an effect on what is shown. Most people ignore that, and simply look at sources in isolation which is not that productive.
Context!
Okay, so the painting that we see is not represntative of the arms and armour at the time of Crecy, so what was the arms and armour of that time period, and where do we look to see an actual represenative so that our kit is reflective of wha was worn during the time of Crecy?
I like Effigies and Brasses effigiesandbrasses.com. Although, I think the point Ian is making still stands: when researching, also research your source.
The 'Crecy' example was just a stand in for any research, but if you're interested specifically, here's a narrowed search of the appropriate time period of funerary monuments in England and France - effigiesandbrasses.com/search/?year=1335&year_end=1355&country=8&country=9&tags=&institution=&name=&costumes=1
dunning-kruger effect. Nice explanation.
illustrators always use contemporary arms and armor when drawing historical illustrations
Pity you couldn't show an actual depiction of 1340s-1350s arms and armour at the end there.
But what if I wan't to fall for the traps? (Insert lenny face here)
It's a trap you bet!
gey
FriendlyLongMan not gay if the dick is feminine
FriendlyLongMan mad gey
Ruka is best girl uwu
I knew that but what are these examples of medieval illustrators trying to make things look older?
+Knyght Errant. Hey Ian may I ask you. Is me commenting and asking questions irritating you, if it does I appologize
No, that's what the channel is here for.
what gave you the idea to make this video?
I'm often involved in a lot of discussions with people trying to build a re-enactment kit for the firs time and I see them make this mistake over and over again.
Een Lespina?
this confrims a suspision i hade.
ok i have been wondering this for a while. what the acual f*ck is on the guys knees in the foreground to the right? was it a meme hundreds of years in the making?? (they protected themselves from arrows to the knee lol)
[BOOT] Northern_Ranger2 they're just poleyns, knee armour.
George Barone ok lol.
Propaganda was also a thing back then.
Wow daddy that beard is getting thicc
Matt Easton would have put all of this into one annoying, indefatigable knock-out word: "CONTEXT!" :-)
it's a trap
Ian you should trim your beard like Georg Von Frundsberg
This might sound obvious, but people in say the 1470s didn't have Google. So how confident would a 1470s painter be in his knowledge of 1340s arms and armour? Any thoughts on that as a potential factor?
they probably had paintings and illustrations from back then, if art from the 14th century survived till today then it definitely survived till the 15th century
You forgot to talk about times where reproductions of an event are unfaithful because of a lack of information or political reasons(like censure and propaganda)
Replicating late fifteenth century kit as seen in art might be a mistake with respect to the goal of building a mid fourteenth century kit, but if you do it well you'll still end up with something that's cohesive and historical. Sure, you'd have to change your story to fit the kit you have, but that's not the end of the world.
Is it gay to fall for this trap?