5470
Post by: sebster
Just read a person repeating an old myth, and thought it would be fun to have a thread on all the little myths that are out there.
The myth I just read (not here, was a commentator for a paper) was hyperinflation in Germany leading to the rise of Nazi Germany. It's a myth you see a lot, but it's entirely false. Hyperinflation in Germany was ended in 1923, with the change in currency in November that year, which was pegged to the price of gold.
Following this the economy performed well and politics in Germany became much less combative, and Hitler's prospects declined considerably. However, in 1929 there was the stock market crash and depression, and between the restrictions of being tied to a gold standard, and a strange belief that it was time to free Germany of foreign debt, saw considerable deflation, which worsened the economic problems - directly tracking to Hitler's rise to power.
Hyperinflation was only an issue, in that fear of it led to a chronic over-reaction in the exact opposite direction.
Anyhow, any other little historical myths you see repeated over and over that you just have to get off your chest?
15447
Post by: rubiksnoob
Marie Antoinette never uttered the infamous "Let them eat cake" phrase. The words never left her lips. The first appearance of the phrase is found in an anecdote from Jean-Jaques Rosseau's autobiography, written when Marie Antoinette was nine years old.
She never said it, people! So stop attributing it to her! Makes me mad.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Everybody thought the earth was flat. Columbus figured out that it was round and wanted to prove it. When he left everybody was sure he would fall of the edge of be earth.
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
Genghis Khan, along with his golden horde actually did attack europe. 10,000-30,000 Man at arms along with 500 battle harden Templars from several orders fought against a force of 10,000 Golden Horde soldiers. The Monguls slaughtered the Polish Forces. Only a few thousand died from the monguls. The Polish forces suffered heavy casualties. Many people believe that the battle never actually happened. But surprisingly it happened. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Legnica http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasion_of_Poland This is also why poland was so fragmented. Genghis Khan is also the one to blame for making the fertile crescent a desert by damning up rivers and running dry the fertile crescent. Also The Battle of Thermoplaye also had other Brave and unmentioned soldiers. Spartans actually had relationships with their others. It inspired them to do better in battle. The Knights Templar order was completely wiped out everywhere except england and Italy. The Italian Branch disappeared. The English began the Free Masons order.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
 d-usa wrote:Everybody thought the earth was flat. Columbus figured out that it was round and wanted to prove it. When he left everybody was sure he would fall of the edge of be earth.
Yeah, in reality everybody thought they would simply starve to death before making it to Asia. And they would have, if the America's had not been in the way.
15447
Post by: rubiksnoob
Also, the lizard people? They've been in control since the start.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
The first rule of lizard people is that one does not talk about lizard people.
28228
Post by: Cheesecat
That cavemen didn't have push powered cars.
5470
Post by: sebster
 rubiksnoob wrote:Marie Antoinette never uttered the infamous "Let them eat cake" phrase. The words never left her lips. The first appearance of the phrase is found in an anecdote from Jean-Jaques Rosseau's autobiography, written when Marie Antoinette was nine years old.
Yeah, this one gets me all the time. We've known this for generations, and the real story is actually pretty interesting, and shows that not much changes in politics (people make up scandalous lies, and they stick because they fit an image of how people would like to see the person). Automatically Appended Next Post: d-usa wrote:Everybody thought the earth was flat. Columbus figured out that it was round and wanted to prove it. When he left everybody was sure he would fall of the edge of be earth.
Classic example of someone changing the world by being stupider than sensible people, and then getting incredibly lucky.
30305
Post by: Laughing Man
The whole "Polish cavalry charging tanks with lances" myth that came out of WW2.
The Poles not only had a fairly modern army, but dragoons were still a thing amongst every major military at the time, including the Germans. The Polish Uhlans in question were heavily armed with carbines, towed artillery, anti-tank rifles, and light tanks.
The source of the myth was actually a successful cavalry charge by the Uhlans on German infantry (with sabres), which was subsequently caught in the open by armored cars and forced to retreat.
5470
Post by: sebster
 Laughing Man wrote:The whole "Polish cavalry charging tanks with lances" myth that came out of WW2.
The Poles not only had a fairly modern army, but dragoons were still a thing amongst every major military at the time, including the Germans. The Polish Uhlans in question were heavily armed with carbines, towed artillery, anti-tank rifles, and light tanks.
The source of the myth was actually a successful cavalry charge by the Uhlans on German infantry (with sabres), which was subsequently caught in the open by armored cars and forced to retreat.
Yeah, good one. It's used so often to support the myth that the German war machine was so advanced, I love pointing out the Germans used cavalry themselves in Russia.
Thing is, when the roads are scarce but there's a lot of open grassland, horses are an excellent way to move soldiers around.
40344
Post by: master of ordinance
 sebster wrote: Laughing Man wrote:The whole "Polish cavalry charging tanks with lances" myth that came out of WW2.
The Poles not only had a fairly modern army, but dragoons were still a thing amongst every major military at the time, including the Germans. The Polish Uhlans in question were heavily armed with carbines, towed artillery, anti-tank rifles, and light tanks.
The source of the myth was actually a successful cavalry charge by the Uhlans on German infantry (with sabres), which was subsequently caught in the open by armored cars and forced to retreat.
Yeah, good one. It's used so often to support the myth that the German war machine was so advanced, I love pointing out the Germans used cavalry themselves in Russia.
Thing is, when the roads are scarce but there's a lot of open grassland, horses are an excellent way to move soldiers around.
Yup this is a good one. It suprised me when i discovered the truth.
How about the arguments as to the status of the Maus superheavy at the end of the war? There are actually accounts of one or two of these engaging Rusian tanks but people say it never happened.
53595
Post by: Palindrome
sebster wrote:
Yeah, good one. It's used so often to support the myth that the German war machine was so advanced, I love pointing out the Germans used cavalry themselves in Russia.
Thing is, when the roads are scarce but there's a lot of open grassland, horses are an excellent way to move soldiers around.
They didn't just use cavalry in Russia, they made extensive use of cavalry (in a mounted infantry role) in Western Europe during the early war period. There was even a SS cavalry division. Outside of Panzer and Panzergrenadier units almost all German transport was horsedrawn, even by the end of the war.
I think the British army was the only combatant to have no literal Cavlary units in 1939.
The Scottish army at Bannockburn would have been armed, and to an extent armoured, in exactly the same fashion as the English, the Scots even had longbowmen. The Braveheart version of blue painted highlanders is a complete fabrication.
France is not a cowardly nation, historically they have won more wars than England. They didn't perform well against Germany in WWII, but then no one did until the German Blitzkreig doctrine started to break down and counters were developed.
5394
Post by: reds8n
It's a popular idea that you cannot flog a dead horse.
.. well recent events have blown that one out of the water eh ?
59752
Post by: Steve steveson
sebster wrote:
Yeah, good one. It's used so often to support the myth that the German war machine was so advanced, ...
I was taught at school that a problem the Germans had int he First and Second world war was that they were superbly equiped and ready to win the last war they fought.
The one that most annoyes/amuses me is the ideas people have on the medieval era, that they were a time of total stagnation and unenlighenment. Part of this is the "flat world" myth. Amusingly people point to maps to prove this... Maps being flat because paper is flat...
7145
Post by: Salad_Fingers
That the puritan pilgrims landed at Plymouth to escape religious persecution in England, when really they moved because England did not persecute nearly enough when it came to religion to satisfy them, they believed the post civil war reformation had not gone far enough and that the English church had become to tolerant.
27051
Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That
sebster wrote:Just read a person repeating an old myth, and thought it would be fun to have a thread on all the little myths that are out there.
The myth I just read (not here, was a commentator for a paper) was hyperinflation in Germany leading to the rise of Nazi Germany. It's a myth you see a lot, but it's entirely false. Hyperinflation in Germany was ended in 1923, with the change in currency in November that year, which was pegged to the price of gold.
Following this the economy performed well and politics in Germany became much less combative, and Hitler's prospects declined considerably. However, in 1929 there was the stock market crash and depression, and between the restrictions of being tied to a gold standard, and a strange belief that it was time to free Germany of foreign debt, saw considerable deflation, which worsened the economic problems - directly tracking to Hitler's rise to power.
Hyperinflation was only an issue, in that fear of it led to a chronic over-reaction in the exact opposite direction.
Anyhow, any other little historical myths you see repeated over and over that you just have to get off your chest?
That's not really a myth. Your description of events has been widely accepted for a long time. Automatically Appended Next Post: Palindrome wrote: sebster wrote:
Yeah, good one. It's used so often to support the myth that the German war machine was so advanced, I love pointing out the Germans used cavalry themselves in Russia.
Thing is, when the roads are scarce but there's a lot of open grassland, horses are an excellent way to move soldiers around.
They didn't just use cavalry in Russia, they made extensive use of cavalry (in a mounted infantry role) in Western Europe during the early war period. There was even a SS cavalry division. Outside of Panzer and Panzergrenadier units almost all German transport was horsedrawn, even by the end of the war.
I think the British army was the only combatant to have no literal Cavlary units in 1939.
The Scottish army at Bannockburn would have been armed, and to an extent armoured, in exactly the same fashion as the English, the Scots even had longbowmen. The Braveheart version of blue painted highlanders is a complete fabrication.
France is not a cowardly nation, historically they have won more wars than England. They didn't perform well against Germany in WWII, but then no one did until the German Blitzkreig doctrine started to break down and counters were developed.
You are correct in saying that the BEF were the world's first fully mechanized force. Even the gravediggers had trucks and armoured cars!
In recent years, a lot of historical revisionism has emerged that paints Britain in the 1930s, not as a struggling country at the mercy of Germany, but a global superpower that made more guns than the Americans (couldn't believe it myself, but it's true) exported more oil than any other nation, and had half of south America churning out grain and beef for it. Amongst other things. The reason for Britain's appeasement to Hiter was the fact that the Battle of the Somme was only twenty odd years in the past, and the memory was still too strong for the public.
5559
Post by: Ratbarf
The explanation for everything.
27051
Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That
 reds8n wrote: It's a popular idea that you cannot flog a dead horse.
.. well recent events have blown that one out of the water eh ?
Terrible joke. You deserve to be stripped off your mod powers, tarred, feathered, and sent to Blackpool for that! 
5559
Post by: Ratbarf
Did someone actually flog a dead horse? I didn't hear about this.
27391
Post by: purplefood
 Ratbarf wrote:Did someone actually flog a dead horse? I didn't hear about this.
It's about come products being found to contain horse meat instead of what they claimed to contain.
15818
Post by: PhantomViper
 Asherian Command wrote:
The Knights Templar order was completely wiped out everywhere except england and Italy. The Italian Branch disappeared. The English began the Free Masons order.
This is a myth.
King Dinis of Portugal allowed the Templars to maintain all of their assets as a reward for their assistance in the fight against the muslims and renamed them the Order of Christ, even negotiating their rightful recognition in the eyes of the church.
This in turn led to the legend that the Templars treasure that was never found by Philip IV of France was actually hidden in the Templar fortress-temple of Tomar. 
22783
Post by: Soladrin
The Dutch Buckriders were sadly not satanic flying goat cavalry. Just a bunch of bandits that triggered a giant witch hunt.
221
Post by: Frazzled
 Soladrin wrote:The Dutch Buckriders were sadly not satanic flying goat cavalry. Just a bunch of bandits that triggered a giant witch hunt.
That sounds epic cool.
Two short myths:
1. that there were no survivors of the Alamo. There were approximately a dozen noncombatants that survived, as did several messengers (and a few deserters).
2. that the North American natives didn't have cities pre Columbus. Indeed there is strong evidence there were tribes near the Mississippii with settlements that sheltered thousands of people. Disease wiped them out.
53002
Post by: Tibbsy
Ratbarf wrote:Did someone actually flog a dead horse? I didn't hear about this.
Flog being slang for selling in this case  Reds8n just won the thread
53595
Post by: Palindrome
PhantomViper wrote:
This is a myth.
King Dinis of Portugal allowed the Templars to maintain all of their assets as a reward for their assistance in the fight against the muslims and renamed them the Order of Christ, even negotiating their rightful recognition in the eyes of the church.
This in turn led to the legend that the Templars treasure that was never found by Philip IV of France was actually hidden in the Templar fortress-temple of Tomar.
The myth about a force of Templars fighting for the Scots at Bannockburn is also a fabrication, it is supposed to date from the victorian era as a reason for why the English lost to a bunch of peasants. In reality there is no way that Robert the Brus would have been happy to associate with the Templars given that he was trying very hard to gain Papal recognition for a Scottish kingdom.
1206
Post by: Easy E
My favorite History Myth? That Catherine the Great dies under a horse. We had good times with that in class.
22783
Post by: Soladrin
 Frazzled wrote: Soladrin wrote:The Dutch Buckriders were sadly not satanic flying goat cavalry. Just a bunch of bandits that triggered a giant witch hunt.
That sounds epic cool.
Two short myths:
1. that there were no survivors of the Alamo. There were approximately a dozen noncombatants that survived, as did several messengers (and a few deserters).
2. that the North American natives didn't have cities pre Columbus. Indeed there is strong evidence there were tribes near the Mississippii with settlements that sheltered thousands of people. Disease wiped them out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckriders
Enjoy. 
12313
Post by: Ouze
That "forte" is pronounced "for-tay" when used outside of discussions on music.
34390
Post by: whembly
Frazzled wrote:
2. that the North American natives didn't have cities pre Columbus. Indeed there is strong evidence there were tribes near the Mississippii with settlements that sheltered thousands of people. Disease wiped them out.
Yep... Cahokia:
Massive earth works and archeological findings...
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Small-pox blankets. There is no concrete evidence that there was ever an intentional use of blankets to spread small pox. The myth exists as a result of a letter from a British colonel in the French-Indian wars who suggested using blankets from an infected fort to weaken the native population. His idea was soundly rejected by his superior. However the events are muddled as the native groups did die several months later of a small pox outbreak. Though this could have resulted from a normal outbreak. Despite being at best, conjecture, the idea is regularly invoked.
The M1 Garand cannot be reloaded until its current clip is empty. This is a myth spawned by Call of Duty and Medal of Honor and was pervasive among gamers for a very long time. A quick google search will reveal instructions on how to manually replace the clip for the M1.
There is no evidence that Admiral Yamamoto ever said "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve." The saying was made famous by the movie Tora! Tora! Tora! and has appeared in several popular history works before and after. However no source or origin for the quote has ever been found. He also never said "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." The quote has long been attributed to Gordon W. Prange's personal papers, but it does not appear in any of them.
My personal favorite:
That General Leslie McNair held back the production of the M27. A historian named Charles Baily wrote a very detailed account of the tanks development in the 1970's and determined that its impossible for McNair to have held the tank back because the Ordinance Department was constantly fumbling its production. When he famously blocked the tank from entering production, the tank did not even exist. No prototype had been built and no field tests completed. Jacob Denvers, long hailed as a man who went over McNair's head to get the tank produced, was in fact something of a shame. He attempted to force the tanks production so that it would be produced even though no prototypes existed. This information is documented within the Ordinance Department's records, but the histories of the Department written after the war politically scape goat the tanks botched production on the then dead General McNair. In spite of this, it seems that no one in the history field is aware of Baily's work. The myth persists both in popular history and among scholarly works.
EDIT: I've actually got a big book of these lying around somewhere... I'll see if I can find it.
EDIT EDIT: Okay, I can't find... But I remembered more while looking
Lets see here.
Nero did not fiddle while Rome burned. The the Great Fire happened in 64 AD, it is popularly believed that Nero fiddled and watched the city burn. The source for this saying is from a history of the Roman Empire that describes Nero as playing a fiddle (as recorded by Cassius Dio). The fiddle would not be invented for another 1000 years in the 10th or 11th century. In fact, he was playing a lyre (plot twist!). However Dio's account is contested by that of historian Aelianus Tacticus, who records that Nero was in Antium at the time, not Rome (though he was playing a lyre when he heard the news). According to Tacticus' account Nero rushed back to Rome paying out of his own pockets to return to the city as quickly as possible.
The 300 Spartans did not defend Thermopalyae alone. They fought along side several thousand other Greeks. When the main Greek force retreated, the Spartans, their helot (slaver) support troops, Thebans, and a unit of Thespians likely being forced to fight against their wishes, stayed behind and died in a last stand. In total the last stand was made by between 1000 and 1400 men. Likewise, it is infeasible for the Persian army to have numbered over a million. Most likely, the army couldn't have been larger than 500,000 (and that's a stretch).
Vikings did not have horned helmets.
Ring around the Roses is not about the plague. Rather it originated in the Victorian era, and had no connection to fears of the plague.
Human life expectancy has increased in the last 100 years. Not a full myth, but a misleading one. The short life expectancies of ancient humans is the direct result of infant mortality and death in child birth. When these numbers are added up, human life expectancy was 40. However, this is the deceiving result of extreme outliers. Families could have a dozen children and only see two or three make it to the age of 10. Of those, only one or two would make it to the age of 20. However, people in ancient times regularly lived to see ages over 70 when they were not starving or being killed by war/disease. In truth, the possible maximum a human being can be expected to live as a natural state, has not changed much in the past 1000 years.
Pythagoreas did not discover the Pythagorean Theorem. Though he is historically the one it is named for, the formula was known to both the ancient Egyptians and the Babylonians long before he was born.
Knights did not need help mounting their horses because their armor was too heavy.
There is no evidence that any Lord in the middle ages ever invoked a right to sleep with the bride on her wedding night.
While George Washington was not the first President of the United States (whoa there let me explain!) The title, "President of the United States" was held by seven men before Washington under the Colonial Congress and Articles of Confederation before Washington! The first was a man named John Hanson of Maryland.
12313
Post by: Ouze
This is a good thread.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
reds8n wrote: It's a popular idea that you cannot flog a dead horse.
.. well recent events have blown that one out of the water eh ?
Flog it in a burger, eh?
54112
Post by: Dr. What
One of my favorite little myths is the idea that cowboys and Indians were always fighting. Cowboys were more likely to die of an STD than from conflict with an Indian or a duel with another cowboy.
Of course, it'd look bad for Jimmy and Timmy to be playing Cowboys and Syphilis in the backyard, so the facts had to be altered!
53595
Post by: Palindrome
 Dr. What wrote:
Of course, it'd look bad for Jimmy and Timmy to be playing Cowboys and Syphilis in the backyard, so the facts had to be altered!
Unrelated but interesting fact. An effective treatment for syphilis is deliberate infection with malaria. Syphilis basically makes your immune sysyem go crazy which is what eventually kills you, the malaria infection 'fixes' the immune system and clears the syphilis. Of course the major downside of this is that you now have malaria....
61310
Post by: Rainbow Dash
d-usa wrote:Everybody thought the earth was flat. Columbus figured out that it was round and wanted to prove it. When he left everybody was sure he would fall of the edge of be earth.
No, they knew it was round, they didn't think going an uncharted way vs a way they already knew was a smart idea
it wasn't cheap to send ships anywhere
18698
Post by: kronk
"Don't drink the Kool Aid" or "Stop drinking the Kool Aid" as a reference to the Jonestown tragedy.
At the Jonestown tragedy, they drank Flavor Aid. Leave the Kool Aid man alone.
38860
Post by: MrDwhitey
 LordofHats wrote:Small-pox blankets. There is no concrete evidence that there was ever an intentional use of blankets to spread small pox. The myth exists as a result of a letter from a British colonel in the French-Indian wars who suggested using blankets from an infected fort to weaken the native population. His idea was soundly rejected by his superior. However the events are muddled as the native groups did die several months later of a small pox outbreak. Though this could have resulted from a normal outbreak. Despite being at best, conjecture, the idea is regularly invoked.
Well, conservapedia in its article on the French Indian War, during the Fort Henry massacre (which didn't happen, only a few hundred were killed at most, but conservapedia says most of the british troops died) the Indians scalped all the dead brits, and got smallpox from the scalps. Which was amusing.
Also, on myths, as no-one has done it yet:
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
At the Jonestown tragedy, they drank Flavor Aid. Leave the Kool Aid man alone.
Yeah but that's just a name thing. People say cool aid because, well where do you even buy flavor aid. Its like Mickey from life dieing from coke and pop rocks. First of all it didn't kill him, second of all it was called Cosmic Candy back then, The Pop rocks brand didn't not come out till much later, but nobody know what Cosmic candy is anymore.
Actually I guess I'm wrong looks like it might have been a regional thing. We never had pop rocks just cosmic candy until the 80s, but I guess they came out at the same time.
Screen doors on polish submarines?
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Long update to my first post with some gems inside. Just so everyone knows its there
EDIT:
And another one! Common thought portrays modern science as springing from a European tradition of rationalism. Myth! In truth, modern science began during the Islamic Golden age. The scientific method was first extrapolated and used by Ibn-Al-Haytham (also known as Alhazen), a Islamic cleric to the court of Cairo. Al-haytham is best known for his work in Optics including the discovery of an accurate Law of Refraction, more commonly known as Snell's Law named for European scientist Willebrord Snellius. Al-Haytham was the first man in history to draw a line between philosophy and science and to argue that the two were not the same.
18698
Post by: kronk
 Andrew1975 wrote:At the Jonestown tragedy, they drank Flavor Aid. Leave the Kool Aid man alone.
Yeah but that's just a name thing. People say cool aid because, well where do you even buy flavor aid.
But he's my uncle and I have to defend him. He's fallen on bad times, though. He's taken being blamed for Jonestown pretty hard...
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
 master of ordinance wrote: sebster wrote: Laughing Man wrote:The whole "Polish cavalry charging tanks with lances" myth that came out of WW2.
The Poles not only had a fairly modern army, but dragoons were still a thing amongst every major military at the time, including the Germans. The Polish Uhlans in question were heavily armed with carbines, towed artillery, anti-tank rifles, and light tanks.
The source of the myth was actually a successful cavalry charge by the Uhlans on German infantry (with sabres), which was subsequently caught in the open by armored cars and forced to retreat.
Yeah, good one. It's used so often to support the myth that the German war machine was so advanced, I love pointing out the Germans used cavalry themselves in Russia.
Thing is, when the roads are scarce but there's a lot of open grassland, horses are an excellent way to move soldiers around.
Yup this is a good one. It suprised me when i discovered the truth.
How about the arguments as to the status of the Maus superheavy at the end of the war? There are actually accounts of one or two of these engaging Rusian tanks but people say it never happened.
It's wishful thinking, a hope of something exciting. There's no evidence I've ever seen that indicates they saw any action, though it made for a great story in an old Warlord annual I had.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
It could be that the Nazis destroyed the working prototype or that its hidden away in one of the many bunker complexs that are still unexplored.
5559
Post by: Ratbarf
There are unexplored bunker complexes? Why don't they explore them?
12313
Post by: Ouze
 Grey Templar wrote:It could be that the Nazis destroyed the working prototype or that its hidden away in one of the many bunker complexs that are still unexplored.
Are there still really unexplored Nazi bunker complexes, like, 70 years later? Honest question.
37585
Post by: Wyrmalla
0.o I thought that the Maus didn't even make it out of the production stages? All that was found was a half built chassis in a workshop and a turret in another one.
At least the Americans finished their super heavies, though again they didn't see action.. ...One wound up being left in the middle of a field because of it quickly running out of fuel as I recall.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
The only known prototype(s) of the Maus are currently in possession of the Russians. There is a myth that when the Russians attacked the facility at Kummersdorf where they were stored, one Maus was manned and used in combat, but it is simply a myth. Of the prototypes, only one had a turret and it lacked the mechanisms to turn its turret and had no ammo for it's fake gun. EDIT: It's turret was also stored away from the tanks body and needed to be pulled out of the wreckage of the facility.
The British did acquire an incomplete prototype at Essen, but this prototype wasn't even assembled when they found it (and like cheap Swiss furniture not all the parts were in the box).
8617
Post by: Hulksmash
That Galileo was burned because he believed the earth moved around the sun. He was executed because he was an a-hole and made enemies all over the place. Just like the round world bit this was pretty common knowledge at the time.
Columbus discovered America.
Indians were savages (or noble savages) and didn't understand the concept of owning land.
Egyptians built the pyramids and they are less than 4000 years old.
Don't get me started on religious myths that didn't happen....
15594
Post by: Albatross
LordofHats wrote:Ring around the Roses is not about the plague. Rather it originated in the Victorian era, and had no connection to fears of the plague.
Actually, the song originated in the 1700s, at least. It was first in print (as far as we know) in the 1880s.
Ask a musicologist!
37231
Post by: d-usa
 Rainbow Dash wrote: d-usa wrote:Everybody thought the earth was flat. Columbus figured out that it was round and wanted to prove it. When he left everybody was sure he would fall of the edge of be earth.
No, they knew it was round, they didn't think going an uncharted way vs a way they already knew was a smart idea
it wasn't cheap to send ships anywhere
Which is why I posted the myth, in a "which historical myths annoy you" thread 
40919
Post by: spiralingcadaver
The thing about NASA spending a ton of money on a space pen, and the Russians just using a pencil:
Both the US and USSR used pencils, greace pencils, etc. Both switched to pens because graphite dust, shavings, etc. were dangerous in space. The US just switched to fancy pens first.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
 Albatross wrote:LordofHats wrote:Ring around the Roses is not about the plague. Rather it originated in the Victorian era, and had no connection to fears of the plague.
Actually, the song originated in the 1700s, at least. It was first in print (as far as we know) in the 1880s.
Ask a musicologist!
My god, it's a myth within a myth! A double myth!
53595
Post by: Palindrome
LordofHats wrote:
The British did acquire an incomplete prototype at Essen, but this prototype wasn't even assembled when they found it (and like cheap Swiss furniture not all the parts were in the box).
I though that was an E-100?
15594
Post by: Albatross
LordofHats wrote: Albatross wrote:LordofHats wrote:Ring around the Roses is not about the plague. Rather it originated in the Victorian era, and had no connection to fears of the plague.
Actually, the song originated in the 1700s, at least. It was first in print (as far as we know) in the 1880s.
Ask a musicologist!
My god, it's a myth within a myth! A double myth!
Yep, it's like fething Inception, brah...
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Palindrome wrote: LordofHats wrote:
The British did acquire an incomplete prototype at Essen, but this prototype wasn't even assembled when they found it (and like cheap Swiss furniture not all the parts were in the box).
I though that was an E-100?
Maybe it was XD I've only read one book that ever mentions the Maus it was only like, three paragraphs
53595
Post by: Palindrome
In fairness there wasn't much difference between a Maus and an E-100, both were closer to Steampunk than reality.
91
Post by: Hordini
LordofHats wrote:
Knights did not need help mounting their horses because their armor was too heavy.
This one has driven me crazy since I was a kid, right along with the related myth that if a knight in plate armor fell down, he wouldn't be able to stand back up without help. The way I've heard some people describe it made knights in plate armor sound like complete morons for wearing equipment that negated almost all of their advantages and transformed them into sitting ducks the second they tripped or fell off a horse.
The truth was a trained knight could run, jump, mount and dismount a horse and probably even do a cartwheel if he wanted to while fully armored. Armor made for jousting was more restrictive, but the armor people wore into battle was meant to allow for movement.
241
Post by: Ahtman
Knights were thugs with poorly made metal swords. Samurai were honorable warriors of great skill and super advanced metallurgical techniques to create the perfect weapon, and could easily defeat any knight.
22783
Post by: Soladrin
 Hordini wrote: LordofHats wrote:
Knights did not need help mounting their horses because their armor was too heavy.
This one has driven me crazy since I was a kid, right along with the related myth that if a knight in plate armor fell down, he wouldn't be able to stand back up without help. The way I've heard some people describe it made knights in plate armor sound like complete morons for wearing equipment that negated almost all of their advantages and transformed them into sitting ducks the second they tripped or fell off a horse.
The truth was a trained knight could run, jump, mount and dismount a horse and probably even do a cartwheel if he wanted to while fully armored. Armor made for jousting was more restrictive, but the armor people wore into battle was meant to allow for movement.
The tripping over and not getting up was only in those battle where the entire battlefield was a muddy field.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Ninjas were cool.
12313
Post by: Ouze
seriously guys are there still unexplorer Nazi bunkers
27391
Post by: purplefood
Soladrin wrote: Hordini wrote: LordofHats wrote:
Knights did not need help mounting their horses because their armor was too heavy.
This one has driven me crazy since I was a kid, right along with the related myth that if a knight in plate armor fell down, he wouldn't be able to stand back up without help. The way I've heard some people describe it made knights in plate armor sound like complete morons for wearing equipment that negated almost all of their advantages and transformed them into sitting ducks the second they tripped or fell off a horse.
The truth was a trained knight could run, jump, mount and dismount a horse and probably even do a cartwheel if he wanted to while fully armored. Armor made for jousting was more restrictive, but the armor people wore into battle was meant to allow for movement.
The tripping over and not getting up was only in those battle where the entire battlefield was a muddy field.
Shame that's basically all of Europe...
91
Post by: Hordini
Soladrin wrote: Hordini wrote: LordofHats wrote:
Knights did not need help mounting their horses because their armor was too heavy.
This one has driven me crazy since I was a kid, right along with the related myth that if a knight in plate armor fell down, he wouldn't be able to stand back up without help. The way I've heard some people describe it made knights in plate armor sound like complete morons for wearing equipment that negated almost all of their advantages and transformed them into sitting ducks the second they tripped or fell off a horse.
The truth was a trained knight could run, jump, mount and dismount a horse and probably even do a cartwheel if he wanted to while fully armored. Armor made for jousting was more restrictive, but the armor people wore into battle was meant to allow for movement.
The tripping over and not getting up was only in those battle where the entire battlefield was a muddy field.
That still sounds pretty mythical to me. Automatically Appended Next Post:  Ouze wrote:seriously guys are there still unexplorer Nazi bunkers
I think the only way they'd be unexplored is if they were also undiscovered.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Wait, what if... the unexplored bunkers are mythical. Maybe templar just super trolled the thread and none of us realized it!
37231
Post by: d-usa
Ouze wrote:seriously guys are there still unexplorer Nazi bunkers
Where do you think all the missing Nazi gold is hidden?
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
maybe...
91
Post by: Hordini
LordofHats wrote:Wait, what if... the unexplored bunkers are mythical. Maybe templar just super trolled the thread and none of us realized it!
What if the part about them being unexplored is true, but the part about them being bunkers is the myth? Woah!
It's like there are these unexplored things, but we don't know what they are! They might be an underground structure of some kind! Automatically Appended Next Post: d-usa wrote: Ouze wrote:seriously guys are there still unexplorer Nazi bunkers
Where do you think all the missing Nazi gold is hidden?
Switzerland?
Oh! Too soon?
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Those damn Swiss. Seriously, somebody should invade them just to open all the unclaimed bank accounts.
22783
Post by: Soladrin
d-usa wrote: Ouze wrote:seriously guys are there still unexplorer Nazi bunkers
Where do you think all the missing Nazi gold is hidden?
The vatican.
37231
Post by: d-usa
That's how the pope got to retire early.
91
Post by: Hordini
Too soon guys! Too soon!
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Hordini wrote:What if the part about them being unexplored is true, but the part about them being bunkers is the myth? Woah!
It's like there are these unexplored things, but we don't know what they are! They might be an underground structure of some kind!
5470
Post by: sebster
Palindrome wrote:They didn't just use cavalry in Russia, they made extensive use of cavalry (in a mounted infantry role) in Western Europe during the early war period. There was even a SS cavalry division. Outside of Panzer and Panzergrenadier units almost all German transport was horsedrawn, even by the end of the war.
I agree on the extensive use of horses in logistics (once again, contrary to the myths German logistics was really old school), but I'm not sure about the claim of mounted infantry in use in Western Europe in the early war.
From my understanding the Germans used mounted infantry throughout Eastern Europe, but in Western Europe the only mounted infantry were a regiment of Cossaks, deployed there late in the war.
France is not a cowardly nation, historically they have won more wars than England. They didn't perform well against Germany in WWII, but then no one did until the German Blitzkreig doctrine started to break down and counters were developed.
The blitzkreig doctrine is actually something of a myth of its own. The German methodology was something closer to an aggressive advance, on which several commanders (notably Guderian and Rommel under him) realised they had decisive breakthrough and were able to exploit under the principles of Auftragstaktik. Had blitzkreig been properly conceived by the German high command then it is probable that the Germans would not have had to delay their advance on Dunkirk.
Even in Barbarossa the German method is something not really that different to the old Prussian doctrines of maneouvre warfare. Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sure, among economic historians and those who read them.
But ask random people in the street, ask them what caused the rise of the Nazis. To the extent that you get any kind of coherent answer, that answer is very likely to include hyperinflation. That's what is meant by the term "popular myth" - a myth among the general population.
In recent years, a lot of historical revisionism has emerged that paints Britain in the 1930s, not as a struggling country at the mercy of Germany, but a global superpower that made more guns than the Americans (couldn't believe it myself, but it's true) exported more oil than any other nation, and had half of south America churning out grain and beef for it. Amongst other things. The reason for Britain's appeasement to Hiter was the fact that the Battle of the Somme was only twenty odd years in the past, and the memory was still too strong for the public.
While the British were most certainly not psychologically ready for another war, they were also quite unprepared for one in terms of force projection, and that continued through the 1930s. Modernisation and readiness only began in earnest in the wake of Munich. Automatically Appended Next Post: LordofHats wrote:Small-pox blankets. There is no concrete evidence that there was ever an intentional use of blankets to spread small pox. The myth exists as a result of a letter from a British colonel in the French-Indian wars who suggested using blankets from an infected fort to weaken the native population. His idea was soundly rejected by his superior. However the events are muddled as the native groups did die several months later of a small pox outbreak. Though this could have resulted from a normal outbreak. Despite being at best, conjecture, the idea is regularly invoked.
Wow, I didn't know that was a myth. Thanks.
The M1 Garand cannot be reloaded until its current clip is empty. This is a myth spawned by Call of Duty and Medal of Honor and was pervasive among gamers for a very long time. A quick google search will reveal instructions on how to manually replace the clip for the M1.
Sure, it spawned from Garand being fiddly to remove a clip that wasn't fully spent. To the point that many soldiers would actually fire off the extra round or two than go through the process. Automatically Appended Next Post:  Hulksmash wrote:That Galileo was burned because he believed the earth moved around the sun. He was executed because he was an a-hole and made enemies all over the place. Just like the round world bit this was pretty common knowledge at the time.
Galileo wasn't exectuted. He was placed under house arrest, and died of natural causes as an old man.
But yeah, the primary reason for his house arrest was that he provoked Pope Urban, pretty openly ridiculing the guy. Not that it's okay for anyone to have the power to punish someone just for being rude, but it's a long way from the popular story that he was punished just for saying the Earth revolved around the Sun. Automatically Appended Next Post:  spiralingcadaver wrote:The thing about NASA spending a ton of money on a space pen, and the Russians just using a pencil:
Both the US and USSR used pencils, greace pencils, etc. Both switched to pens because graphite dust, shavings, etc. were dangerous in space. The US just switched to fancy pens first.
And the pen was invented by a clever civilian and donated to NASA, costing them nothing.
28315
Post by: GalacticDefender
Hulksmash wrote:That Galileo was burned because he believed the earth moved around the sun. He was executed because he was an a-hole and made enemies all over the place. Just like the round world bit this was pretty common knowledge at the time.
Columbus discovered America.
Indians were savages (or noble savages) and didn't understand the concept of owning land.
Egyptians built the pyramids and they are less than 4000 years old.
Don't get me started on religious myths that didn't happen....
Galieleo was not executed  He was tried for heresey because he would not take back his discovery and put on house arrest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair
Also the pyramids were indeed built by egyptians... 
28228
Post by: Cheesecat
The pyramids were built by aliens everyone knows that.
28315
Post by: GalacticDefender
All insane conspiracy theories aside, I think it is kind of sad that some people don't see ancient humans as being well equipped or intelligent enough to be able to build things like the pyramids. I mean, seriously, where did the aliens myth even come from?
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
 GalacticDefender wrote:
All insane conspiracy theories aside, I think it is kind of sad that some people don't see ancient humans as being well equipped or intelligent enough to be able to build things like the pyramids. I mean, seriously, where did the aliens myth even come from?
Who knows. My guess is drugs. Its gotta be drugs.
42342
Post by: Smacks
"America deserves all the credit for winning WWII and saving Europe's ass."
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Well we did save Europe's ass, from the Russians.
5470
Post by: sebster
GalacticDefender wrote:All insane conspiracy theories aside, I think it is kind of sad that some people don't see ancient humans as being well equipped or intelligent enough to be able to build things like the pyramids. I mean, seriously, where did the aliens myth even come from?
Racism, originally. All the ancient wonders of Europe started to look pretty gakky compared to those massive pyramids. So people started inventing higher races that must have helped the 'lowly' Egyptians to build them. Over time the racism dropped away, but people didn't want to ditch all the crazy imaginative stuff. Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yep.
37036
Post by: Sir Pseudonymous
Hulksmash wrote:Indians were savages (or noble savages) and didn't understand the concept of owning land.
While the evidence bears out the existence of early agricultural civilization in america pre-european colonisation, by the relevant time period that had been largely destroyed by plagues (which killed, by some estimates, 99 out of every hundred natives), and the survivors were thrown back to more primitive states, either nomadic hunting and gathering, or horticulturalism, neither of which deals with land in anything approaching the manner agricultural civilizations do. They were savages not out of some inherent and personal flaw, but because that's what humans develop as in the absence of ordered civilisation and, more importantly, the safety and comparative comfort it provides. Automatically Appended Next Post: Ouze wrote:seriously guys are there still unexplorer Nazi bunkers
If I recall correctly, there were some facilities that were demolished prior to their capture by the allies, some of which were at least partially underground, and excavation was deemed too expensive or difficult for any potential reward, so whatever might be buried/sealed off in them, perhaps. Of course, I also recall that my source on this was some parascience lunacy about aliens or levitation technology or something like that which happened to be playing in the background while I was doing something else, which was no doubt more important, but less memorable.
5946
Post by: Miguelsan
He might have been thinking about Giordano Bruno http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno that no matter what some guys might think was not burned at the stake for his ideas about the Earth not being the center of the Universe. A Catholic priest that starts doubting that Jesus is the son of God in public has bigger issues with the Inquisition that some astronomical theories that never were contested by the church.
M.
15447
Post by: rubiksnoob
221
Post by: Frazzled
Illegal aliens.
From Mexico.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Frazzled, quit being all old man in here, nobody is talking about Las Vegas.
42342
Post by: Smacks
That's true enough... Though Europe's wasn't the only ass on the line that time.
53595
Post by: Palindrome
sebster wrote:
From my understanding the Germans used mounted infantry throughout Eastern Europe, but in Western Europe the only mounted infantry were a regiment of Cossaks, deployed there late in the war.
The German 1st Cavalry Divison fought in Holland and France in 1940.
The blitzkreig doctrine may not have explicitly existed but I think its a good description of the German's extensive use of mobility and concentrated armoured attacks with close combined arms support. Automatically Appended Next Post: sebster wrote:[ Had blitzkreig been properly conceived by the German high command then it is probable that the Germans would not have had to delay their advance on Dunkirk.
That was due to to British (and French) feats of arms
Of course if the British and French high commands had been paying more attention to how the German army was evolving in the post war years France would probably never have fallen.
752
Post by: Polonius
Sir Pseudonymous wrote: Hulksmash wrote:Indians were savages (or noble savages) and didn't understand the concept of owning land.
While the evidence bears out the existence of early agricultural civilization in america pre-european colonisation, by the relevant time period that had been largely destroyed by plagues (which killed, by some estimates, 99 out of every hundred natives), and the survivors were thrown back to more primitive states, either nomadic hunting and gathering, or horticulturalism, neither of which deals with land in anything approaching the manner agricultural civilizations do. They were savages not out of some inherent and personal flaw, but because that's what humans develop as in the absence of ordered civilisation and, more importantly, the safety and comparative comfort it provides.
Not quite. there was still agriculture in the Azetc empire, among the Navajo, and in the Iroquois nations. They couldn't teach Pigrims how to grow corn without have a pretty keen grasp on it themselves.
What's more likely to happen is that after the collapse of the city states, there was a population explosion among prey animals. North America has a dearth of apex predators, because the natives killed the big ones. For the last 10,000, humans have been the only thing keeping deer and buffalo populations in check. It simply became easier to hunt and fish and gather than to farm. The early settlers consistently were shocked at how much game was present.
Imagine you're in an apocalyptic wasteland. 95% of humanity died. Do you start building stuff from scratch, or do you loot everything you can from the ruins?
21720
Post by: LordofHats
 Polonius wrote: It simply became easier to hunt and fish and gather than to farm. The early settlers consistently were shocked at how much game was present.
THis.
I'll also point out the extent of disease in North and South America is a heavily disputed issue on nearly all sides. Some historians point out that numerous wars fought between colonial powers and their allies with non-allied native groups would have been impossible if 99% of all natives got killed by disease. Trade routes in some regions were not developed enough to spread it, and in other areas, like the still existent Mayan culture, disease was present but didn't have a major impact despite fairly large settlements and extensive trade routes. No one can agree on how much the Aztecs suffered at the hands of disease or at the hands of their own internal and external political problems. Archeologists can't decide if the evidence they have supports massive death tolls or or minor ones. Most likely (as with all things) the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
33170
Post by: Lord Castellan
Hulksmash wrote:That Galileo was burned because he believed the earth moved around the sun. He was executed because he was an a-hole and made enemies all over the place. Just like the round world bit this was pretty common knowledge at the time..
The belief that Galileo was executed. He was actually placed under house arrest.
221
Post by: Frazzled
d-usa wrote: Frazzled, quit being all old man in here, nobody is talking about Las Vegas.
We all know Mexicans built the pyramids. Have you seen the pyramid of the of the sun and moon? Automatically Appended Next Post: Polonius wrote:Sir Pseudonymous wrote: Hulksmash wrote:Indians were savages (or noble savages) and didn't understand the concept of owning land.
While the evidence bears out the existence of early agricultural civilization in america pre-european colonisation, by the relevant time period that had been largely destroyed by plagues (which killed, by some estimates, 99 out of every hundred natives), and the survivors were thrown back to more primitive states, either nomadic hunting and gathering, or horticulturalism, neither of which deals with land in anything approaching the manner agricultural civilizations do. They were savages not out of some inherent and personal flaw, but because that's what humans develop as in the absence of ordered civilisation and, more importantly, the safety and comparative comfort it provides.
Not quite. there was still agriculture in the Azetc empire, among the Navajo, and in the Iroquois nations. They couldn't teach Pigrims how to grow corn without have a pretty keen grasp on it themselves. What's more likely to happen is that after the collapse of the city states, there was a population explosion among prey animals. North America has a dearth of apex predators, because the natives killed the big ones. For the last 10,000, humans have been the only thing keeping deer and buffalo populations in check. It simply became easier to hunt and fish and gather than to farm. The early settlers consistently were shocked at how much game was present. Imagine you're in an apocalyptic wasteland. 95% of humanity died. Do you start building stuff from scratch, or do you loot everything you can from the ruins?
Yes, you cited two examples of tribes that existed effectively prior to the great plagues: the tribes greeting the Pilgrims, and the Aztecs. In fact these tribes are a case study in what happend. It actually supports the argument of great settlements prior to the coming of the plagues in many areas. Most of North America was not as developed, but there were still great settlements here. Even post initial disease waves-the Iroquis are an example. Whats interesting is that there were rumors of great civilizations in the Amazons, that one Spanish explorer hdenoted massive cities with raised roads etc. Later these were completely discounted because the Amazon today is just jungle and a few tiny tribes. But they did some fancy spectral or radar work in one location, and you can clearly see the old road system. It was massive. I'll see if I can find something on it. Its breathtaking - kinid of like discovering Atlantis really existed. EDIT: Here's a note: http://rainforests.mongabay.com/external/amazon_cities_before_columbus.html On a side I'll disagree about the dearth of predators. North America has/had a massive variety of bears including the giant grizzly bear. Mountain lions, and a variety of smaller cats, and wolves by the bushel. We also have a joyous number of alligators. We weren't the African Savannah (only Africa can be Africa), but we had a great share. Now in Central and South America you didn't have the big bears but you had the mighty jaguar (including black panther versions), and crocodiles.
752
Post by: Polonius
There's actually a lot evidence to suggest that the American Great Plains were actually quite a bit like the African Savannah, including mammoths, giants sloths, and lions. Not mountain lions, but lions larger even then modern African lions. Also dire wolves and sabertooth tigers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleistocene_megafauna#North_America
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Yeah, but that was long before Europeans arrived. The natives hunted most of the large herbivores to extinction and the large predators followed.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Oh yea. I believe the second largest mammalian predator was in North America: the short faced bear: twice the size of a Grizzly. YEA BABY!
5470
Post by: sebster
Palindrome wrote:The German 1st Cavalry Divison fought in Holland and France in 1940.
I did not know that, thanks. The blitzkreig doctrine may not have explicitly existed but I think its a good description of the German's extensive use of mobility and concentrated armoured attacks with close combined arms support.
I see your point, but I think blitkreig means more than concentrated armour attacks. It requires some notion of breakthrough and exploitation of that breakthrough - something much closer the Russian concept of Deep Operations. That was due to to British (and French) feats of arms
The escape was a remarkable achievement. That there were troops on the beach, free from German attack is due largely to the limitations in Geman planning and support equipment. To keep up with the tank push, the German infantry pretty much marched from German to the coast of France. The tanks meanwhile were close to running out of fuel. Things that, had German High Command properly planned as part of a real blitzkreig operation, would not have happened. Of course if the British and French high commands had been paying more attention to how the German army was evolving in the post war years France would probably never have fallen.
Yeah. Or if the Germans had opted for a repeat of the Schlieffen plan when they first planned to attack, it's likely their invasion would have stagnated and quickly run out of ammunition. There's a lot of what-ifs for that early war period.
53595
Post by: Palindrome
I meant the counter attack at Arras; it was only partially succesful at the local level, and casualities were very light in the scheme of things, but it scared the OKW enough that it made them pause long ehough to allow Dunkirk to happen.
37036
Post by: Sir Pseudonymous
Polonius wrote:Not quite. there was still agriculture in the Azetc empire, among the Navajo, and in the Iroquois nations. They couldn't teach Pigrims how to grow corn without have a pretty keen grasp on it themselves.
What's more likely to happen is that after the collapse of the city states, there was a population explosion among prey animals. North America has a dearth of apex predators, because the natives killed the big ones. For the last 10,000, humans have been the only thing keeping deer and buffalo populations in check. It simply became easier to hunt and fish and gather than to farm. The early settlers consistently were shocked at how much game was present.
I included horticulture in there alongside hunting-gathering; which is basically agriculture but with smaller groups, and no real permanence of location for either fields or buildings. On a sidenote to that, it alwalys annoys me when people try to point at the native americans of that period (or really any horticulturalists) as some sort of eco-friendly ideal; they weren't, they just had an extremely low population density, and scaled up to modern population levels their lifestyle would be disproportionately ruinous.
Imagine you're in an apocalyptic wasteland. 95% of humanity died. Do you start building stuff from scratch, or do you loot everything you can from the ruins?
Exactly. In the absence of order imposed by civilization, and its attendant infrastructure and benefits, human instinct takes over. Which amounts to behavior akin to that exhibited by native americans once european colonisation was in full swing.
5470
Post by: sebster
Palindrome wrote:I meant the counter attack at Arras; it was only partially succesful at the local level, and casualities were very light in the scheme of things, but it scared the OKW enough that it made them pause long ehough to allow Dunkirk to happen.
Arguably, I guess. But a single counter attack causing a single day's delay at best, in the midst of a general route can't, I think, really be called a 'feat of arms'. I mean, de Gaulle forced a similar, short term result at Montcornet.
And what I've read elsewhere indicates the delay in the German advance was due more to the logistic shortfalls I mentioned above than the effect of that one counter attack..
53595
Post by: Palindrome
sebster wrote:
I see your point, but I think blitkreig means more than concentrated armour attacks. It requires some notion of breakthrough and exploitation of that breakthrough - something much closer the Russian concept of Deep Operations.
It does, but only the German armies were capable of launching succesful Blitzkreig style attacks in the early war period; quite simply no one else was properly set up for it, the other combatants lacked the strong armoured formations and/or lacked the cohesion to carry through with a fast breakthrough attack.
The term 'Blitzkrieg' was actually coined by an American ( IIRC) journalist.
37036
Post by: Sir Pseudonymous
LordofHats wrote: Polonius wrote: It simply became easier to hunt and fish and gather than to farm. The early settlers consistently were shocked at how much game was present.
THis.
I'll also point out the extent of disease in North and South America is a heavily disputed issue on nearly all sides. Some historians point out that numerous wars fought between colonial powers and their allies with non-allied native groups would have been impossible if 99% of all natives got killed by disease. Trade routes in some regions were not developed enough to spread it, and in other areas, like the still existent Mayan culture, disease was present but didn't have a major impact despite fairly large settlements and extensive trade routes. No one can agree on how much the Aztecs suffered at the hands of disease or at the hands of their own internal and external political problems. Archeologists can't decide if the evidence they have supports massive death tolls or or minor ones. Most likely (as with all things) the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
While 99 percent is a bit of a stretch, and likely an overestimate, we know the population was significantly higher prior to european colonisation efforts (in North America, specifically). Not to say that they died off across the country all at once, but their population in any given area when settlers moved in was greatly reduced from earlier estimates. As it's not possible for this to have been the result of wholesale slaughter (not that massacres never happened, but they were on the scale of hundreds dead, not the hundreds of thousands or low millions it would have taken), disease or other fairly natural causes have to have been quite strongly present.
As for the peoples of central america: since we know romans made contact with them at least once (presumably the cause of the local prophecy regarding pale skinned gods crossing the seas in floating castles (or however the specifics went), if that's not an apocryphal story, that is), and we know that egypt had some small amount of transatlantic trade (tobacco leaves and traces of cocaine found in mummies), is it conceivable that the diseases that so ravaged some populations could have already been present in others, leaving them somewhat more resistant?
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
The thing is, though, we DON'T know that the Romans had contact with anyone in the Americas and the tobacco/coca findings are disputed. The "white men from the sea" thingie could easily be explained by the Vikings, who we DO know landed near Newfoundland some 400 years prior to Columbus.
I'd love to read more about the mummy thingie, but the only hits I get from Google gives me this kind of vibe:
37036
Post by: Sir Pseudonymous
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:The thing is, though, we DON'T know that the Romans had contact with anyone in the Americas and the tobacco/coca findings are disputed. The "white men from the sea" thingie could easily be explained by the Vikings, who we DO know landed near Newfoundland some 400 years prior to Columbus.
I'd love to read more about the mummy thingie, but the only hits I get from Google gives me this kind of vibe:
Finding where I read about the tobacco and cocaine in mummies, I get this and this as citations, though the second does make a point of listing possible non-transatlantic-trading-related causes. I do not know, and so cannot comment on, the reliability of those books as legitimate sources.
The only still existing citation for the roman contact appears to be this old NYTimes piece about what was apparently a roman vessel filled with jars manufactured on the atlantic coast of morocco being found off the coast of brazil in the eighties, before the site was covered in a large mound of silt because of the controversial implications it raised. Other things refer to roman artifacts found in pre-columbian sites, but no citations.
It's not that mind-boggling to assume that mediterranean vessels crossed the atlantic, galleys/biremes might be horribly unsafe in open ocean, but we know for a fact vikings crossed in the north atlantic, for all that they and their vessels would be suited to those rough waters than a mediterranean ship and crew.
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
There are nazi bunkers/tunnels that are still sealed after deliberate demolition or allied bombing, I don't think they are full of Maus tanks, secret weapons and zombies though.
There are some interesting stories about these sites but this is a thread debunking historical myths not furthering speculation based on dubious evidence...
37036
Post by: Sir Pseudonymous
I thought it was about common myths and the discussion thereof. That seems like the direction it's kept at, anyways.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
As for the peoples of central america: since we know romans made contact with them at least once (presumably the cause of the local prophecy regarding pale skinned gods crossing the seas in floating castles (or however the specifics went), if that's not an apocryphal story, that is), and we know that egypt had some small amount of transatlantic trade (tobacco leaves and traces of cocaine found in mummies), is it conceivable that the diseases that so ravaged some populations could have already been present in others, leaving them somewhat more resistant?
While I don't know about all that, I have read one theory that goes like this:
Based on Archeological evidence we know that the Mayans and Incas may have suffered a few of their own plague epidemics before Europeans arrived (EDIT: And it is generally believed that the early Mississippi River civilization was wiped out in part by a plague of some kind and the Aztecs origins were not too disremoved from that region). It makes sense to assume that they may have had their own native endemic diseases. The Aztecs may have been suffering these at the same time when the Spanish arrived, introducing small pox and BAM. Double plague, one native, one foreign. It's like mixing chocolate with peanut butter... only deadly.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Sir Pseudonymous wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote:The thing is, though, we DON'T know that the Romans had contact with anyone in the Americas and the tobacco/coca findings are disputed. The "white men from the sea" thingie could easily be explained by the Vikings, who we DO know landed near Newfoundland some 400 years prior to Columbus.
I'd love to read more about the mummy thingie, but the only hits I get from Google gives me this kind of vibe:
Finding where I read about the tobacco and cocaine in mummies, I get this and this as citations, though the second does make a point of listing possible non-transatlantic-trading-related causes. I do not know, and so cannot comment on, the reliability of those books as legitimate sources.
The only still existing citation for the roman contact appears to be this old NYTimes piece about what was apparently a roman vessel filled with jars manufactured on the atlantic coast of morocco being found off the coast of brazil in the eighties, before the site was covered in a large mound of silt because of the controversial implications it raised. Other things refer to roman artifacts found in pre-columbian sites, but no citations.
It's not that mind-boggling to assume that mediterranean vessels crossed the atlantic, galleys/biremes might be horribly unsafe in open ocean, but we know for a fact vikings crossed in the north atlantic, for all that they and their vessels would be suited to those rough waters than a mediterranean ship and crew.
And at the narrowist point the Atlantic is only 1,770 miles accross, which isn't beyond the possibility of Roman era ships to cross.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
The main issue with Roman contact is that its hard to conceive that the Romans or Egyptians could manage direct contact with the Americas without documenting it at all. The Roman empire is the point in history where we begin to find an abundance of primary sources for major events, and yet they might have crossed the Atlantic, brought back trade goods, and never mentioned it in any source material?
It's an odd quagmire.
EDIT: Also, the NY Times piece is on its face pretty incredible. Scam artists like that guy are a dime a dozen (maybe even a Nickle). The other two links certainly raise very interesting possibilities, but Occam's Razor being what it is, the simplest answer at the moment is simply contamination (thought the results of the test to me, seem to be enough to warrant keeping the door open).
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
It could easily get lost if the significance of the discovery was not known.
A Roman Expedition goes down the coast of Africa and turns west. After a few weeks they reach another land and spend several months exploring. They come back after some time.
The records mearely show they went south and found some stuff. The explicit details arn't super exciting so no big deal is made out of them. The records don't indicate to a modern reader what they did precisely.
241
Post by: Ahtman
People believed that the Battle of Hoth was a military incursion to break the rebellion, when in reality, as I understand it, they were really just after one guy.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Grey Templar wrote:It could easily get lost if the significance of the discovery was not known.
A Roman Expedition goes down the coast of Africa and turns west. After a few weeks they reach another land and spend several months exploring. They come back after some time.
The records mearely show they went south and found some stuff. The explicit details arn't super exciting so no big deal is made out of them. The records don't indicate to a modern reader what they did precisely.
It's pretty hard to confuse south with west, and to go 1000+ miles by accident, and then make it back another 1000+ miles to get back where you started. The North Star was known to the Romans and used. EDIT: Though this could raise the possibility that if the ship ever existed, it could have been lost and drifted into those waters. A more likely possibility is that Robert Marx is spewing bull crap from his mouth in a attempt to get a book deal after becoming academically irrelevant.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Ahtman wrote:People believed that the Battle of Hoth was a military incursion to break the rebellion, when in reality, as I understand it, they were really just after one guy.
Ha!
18698
Post by: kronk
Ahtman wrote:People believed that the Battle of Hoth was a military incursion to break the rebellion, when in reality, as I understand it, they were really just after one guy.
... I see what you did there! Myth: Tang was invented for the Astronaught program. Fact 1: Tang predated the Astronaught program, but was made famous by being on board John Glenn's Mercury flight. Fact 2: Wu Tang Clan is not affiliated with the Astronaught program or Tang the drink.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Grey Templar wrote:It could easily get lost if the significance of the discovery was not known.
A Roman Expedition goes down the coast of Africa and turns west. After a few weeks they reach another land and spend several months exploring. They come back after some time.
The records mearely show they went south and found some stuff. The explicit details arn't super exciting so no big deal is made out of them. The records don't indicate to a modern reader what they did precisely.
There's no evidence however in the Americas. Further, the suggestion that ships, designed for the the calm Mediterranean and were used to hug the shore predominantly with only small jumps across open water, and whom wrecked extremely easily in weather, would cross the Atlantic is a difficult concept at best.
This goes with "Aliens built the Mayan temples" stuff.
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
You rang?
I thought everyone accepted that Aliens had created the Mayan Temples...
21720
Post by: LordofHats
No. It was the Free Masons. Clearly.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Based on Archeological evidence we know that the Mayans and Incas may have suffered a few of their own plague epidemics before Europeans arrived (EDIT: And it is generally believed that the early Mississippi River civilization was wiped out in part by a plague of some kind and the Aztecs origins were not too disremoved from that region).
Wait central Mexico and the Mississippii region are incredibly removed from each other, on the order of 2,200 miles.
The Mississippii tribes were wiped out by plagues, but those plagues came from Europe. Indeed Spanish conquistadores and explorers detailed some of these tribes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippian_culture
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Frazzled wrote:Wait central Mexico and the Mississippii region are incredibly removed from each other, on the order of 2,200 miles.
The Mississippii tribes were wiped out by plagues, but those plagues came from Europe. Indeed Spanish conquistadores and explorers detailed some of these tribes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippian_culture
I'm going way way way way back. The very earlist Mississippi civilization just disappeared around 500AD (?). The most ancient Aztec ancestors migrated southward from a region (southish)west of it.
9835
Post by: yeri
I don't know if it's a myth or not, but i like to think that the Swiss banking system was a product of the Knights Templar. the story goes that apparently two Templars were on a horse (because you know when times get tough, Templars horsepool ) heading home to the Alps and one of them says to the other: "so we're broke and we have no lands or applicable skills."
the other says: "that's not true, didn't we have that banking system way back when? let's start it back up again here!" so they did just that and that was the beginnings of the Swiss Banking system. to me that's a plausible story, at least more plausible than anything else surrounding the Templars.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
IDK if the story is true or not but the Templars did have a monopoly on Banking in the Latin controlled Levant, namely in Jerusalem so its not a totally far fetched idea.
35046
Post by: Perkustin
That show QI and cracked.com have alot to answer for.
18080
Post by: Anpu42
 Howard A Treesong wrote:There are nazi bunkers/tunnels that are still sealed after deliberate demolition or allied bombing, I don't think they are full of Maus tanks, secret weapons and zombies though.
This was the climax of an RPG I ran last summer.
46059
Post by: rockerbikie
Ivar the boneless was 9 feet tall. Vikings wear horn shaped helmets. Vikings attacked Christians for no good reason and were uncivilised. The Aztecs were uncivilised and the Spanish were. King John I of England was a bad King.
Ivar the boneless was a disabled dwarf Jarl who conquered parts of Ireland and England. He was carried on a shield lifted by a few people, while he shot arrows from his bow. The idea of Vikings having horned shaped helmets was romanticised in the 19th century by play wreight. The Norse society was very civilised, they were merchants, traders and farmers. The Norse had a lot of women's rights, the women could divorce her husband if he was too abusive or did not make enough money to feed the family. The raids were response to the murderous King Charlemagne who decided to murder Saxon priests and cut down their sacred tree. King John I inherited a bankrupt kingdom after his brother wasted money on the crusade, King John did what was nessacary to keep England a float.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
 rockerbikie wrote: The raids were response to the murderous King Charlemagne who decided to murder Saxon priests and cut down their sacred tree.
While I'm not sure that 'Vikings attacking Christians for no good reason' is a myth (as in I've never heard anyone suggest that) this is kind of neato. I knew Charlie was pretty mean to the pagans, but gotta say I never once thought of it leading to Viking raids. Granted, I doubt that this is the only reason. After all, why would the earliest raids be on Britain if they were angry at the Franks? Still interesting though.
11289
Post by: MisterMoon
Anytime someone says, I don't know, therefore aliens... like that meme.
Basically saying, I don't have real evidence, but I have no problem interjecting a theory with absolutely no evidence.
53595
Post by: Palindrome
The Vikings were heavily involved in the slave trade, the English word 'slave' even comes from the huge number of Slavs that the Vikings captured to be sold into slavery.
I wouldn't be quick to call the Vikings civilised, they were not very nice people. That is to be expected somewhat given when they lived but even by the low standards of the Dark Ages /early Medieval period they were a bunch of bastards.
241
Post by: Ahtman
 MisterMoon wrote:Anytime someone says, I don't know, therefore aliens... like that meme.
Basically saying, I don't have real evidence, but I have no problem interjecting a theory with absolutely no evidence.
That seems like less of a historical myth and more of a fairly common pet peeve.
33170
Post by: Lord Castellan
That the Vikings were an actual civilisation.
"Viking" actually means something aking to "sea-goer", or "pirate".
53595
Post by: Palindrome
They weren't a civilisation but they were a cultural group.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Depends on what definition of Civilization one is using. I prefer the classical but w/e.
35046
Post by: Perkustin
Well they were a feudal/tribal nation spread around Scandinavia and their many colonies. If the fractious nation of dark age Britain was a civilization then so was the 'viking nation'.
Oh slightly related fun-fact: The viking practice of bathing everyday was seen as barbarous and uncivilised by the Anglo-saxons.
Did the vikings have slaves themselves? I know they shared the 'thralls' of their fictional ironborn stablemates in limited numbers but slaves seem to have been more of an 'export product' for the vikings.
21313
Post by: Vulcan
Soladrin wrote:The tripping over and not getting up was only in those battle where the entire battlefield was a muddy field.
Or if they fell off their horse and were injured from the impact with the ground - about as common an occurance as being injured in an automobile accident.
1464
Post by: Breotan
I always thought "viking" was originally a verb and its use as a noun was a misnomer that simply gained acceptance.
18698
Post by: kronk
I'm going to viking my girlfriend this weekend.
Wait, what does viking as a verb mean?
21720
Post by: LordofHats
 kronk wrote:I'm going to viking my girlfriend this weekend.
Wait, what does viking as a verb mean?
According to Etymology on Wikipedia, it means an overseas expedition specifically "to go on an expedition."
18698
Post by: kronk
Ah, then I used it correctly.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Your taking an expedition on your girlfriend? You lucky dog you
34390
Post by: whembly
Wait? You don't wanna "James Dean'ed" your girfriend? (google-fu that! )
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Of course we could play it safe and just say he Kronked her. Would be more specific to the situation.
"Hey baby, lets go Kronking together"
37231
Post by: d-usa
Gotta explore the southern shore.
46059
Post by: rockerbikie
LordofHats wrote: rockerbikie wrote: The raids were response to the murderous King Charlemagne who decided to murder Saxon priests and cut down their sacred tree.
While I'm not sure that 'Vikings attacking Christians for no good reason' is a myth (as in I've never heard anyone suggest that) this is kind of neato. I knew Charlie was pretty mean to the pagans, but gotta say I never once thought of it leading to Viking raids. Granted, I doubt that this is the only reason. After all, why would the earliest raids be on Britain if they were angry at the Franks? Still interesting though.
Those were to raise funds against the Franks. It was a war between Christianity and Pagan Religions at the time period. Raids against the Holy Roman Empire and France was also recorded. Automatically Appended Next Post: Palindrome wrote:The Vikings were heavily involved in the slave trade, the English word 'slave' even comes from the huge number of Slavs that the Vikings captured to be sold into slavery.
I wouldn't be quick to call the Vikings civilised, they were not very nice people. That is to be expected somewhat given when they lived but even by the low standards of the Dark Ages /early Medieval period they were a bunch of bastards.
The slaves were called Thralls, it happened when you were captured during battle or you fleed the battle and were caught. It was expected you would die in battle. As a Thrall, you were actually treated well. If a lord mistreated a Thrall he often look down upon in Nordic society, a Thrall could even earn freedom. Automatically Appended Next Post: True. They were a group of nations. Harold Fairhair united Norway, I don't know who united Sweden though.
37231
Post by: d-usa
If I know anything about Sweden I would say that they were united by boobs.
37036
Post by: Sir Pseudonymous
LordofHats wrote:The main issue with Roman contact is that its hard to conceive that the Romans or Egyptians could manage direct contact with the Americas without documenting it at all. The Roman empire is the point in history where we begin to find an abundance of primary sources for major events, and yet they might have crossed the Atlantic, brought back trade goods, and never mentioned it in any source material?
We know a lot about the Roman Republic/Empire, and at the same time we don't. We know a disproportionate amount, yes, but this still forms a tiny portion of even just what we know was recorded, but which hasn't survived.
There's also the possibility that they showed up, traded or whatnot, and then failed to make the voyage back, since the ships of that era weren't particularly safe in open ocean.
EDIT: Also, the NY Times piece is on its face pretty incredible. Scam artists like that guy are a dime a dozen (maybe even a Nickle). The other two links certainly raise very interesting possibilities, but Occam's Razor being what it is, the simplest answer at the moment is simply contamination (thought the results of the test to me, seem to be enough to warrant keeping the door open).
I'm somewhat more inclined to believe a competent salvager/looter than a third world government, particularly given the details of that case.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
rockerbikie wrote:[ Those were to raise funds against the Franks. It was a war between Christianity and Pagan Religions at the time period. Raids against the Holy Roman Empire and France was also recorded.
Now that makes sense. Was it a united effort or more of a personal effort to those who cared enough to take some kind of action?
I'm somewhat more inclined to believe a competent salvager/looter than a third world government, particularly given the details of that case.
His story is about as believable as that whole Egypt building a damn to cover up evidence that ancient Egyptians were black thing, even though they'd been building on that damn dam for upwards of 40 years. So yeah. Me no believy the story teller on that one
27051
Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That
I've been reading the books I got for Christmas, and was surprised to learn that the Boston massacre wasn't a massacre, Lexington and Concord wasn't as one sided as its been made out to be, and that a Tiger is bigger than a lion! 
Getting back to what I said earlier about Britain in the 1930s, I'd like to point out that Germany wasn't spending more than everybody else on defence, if anything, it was out-performed in that department.
During the 1930s, Britian made and sold more guns than anybody (including America) and out spent everybody. Where as the Germans (being in Europe) spent more money on tanks, Britian's money went on the navy (what a surprise) and a massive upgrade of Singapore's defences (for all the good it did) plus major investments in Radar and the RAF. It's always been believed that Britian wasn't ready for war in the 1930s. It was, just reluctant to get involved.
22783
Post by: Soladrin
Who the hell doesn't know this?
7653
Post by: Corpsesarefun
Tigers are a LOT bigger than lions.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Yeah, thats one of those little secrets that everybody knows.
7653
Post by: Corpsesarefun
It's not even a secret.
Elephants are also larger than lions.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Its one of those things you learn in like 3rd grade or something.
7653
Post by: Corpsesarefun
Great white sharks are larger than lions.
28228
Post by: Cheesecat
Blue whales are bigger than great white sharks.
43066
Post by: feeder
The answer is never "blue whales"
91
Post by: Hordini
Australia is bigger than blue whales.
28228
Post by: Cheesecat
Canada is bigger than Australia but New Zealand is smaller than Australia.
37231
Post by: d-usa
This seems like the perfect spot for a "Your mom is bigger than Canada" joke.
7653
Post by: Corpsesarefun
Lions are bigger than Canada.
91
Post by: Hordini
Tigers are bigger than...
Oh, we did that one already!
4412
Post by: George Spiggott
What about elephants and the moon?
15447
Post by: rubiksnoob
I must have missed something in this thread.
7926
Post by: youbedead
All hail the glorious turtle pie
46059
Post by: rockerbikie
LordofHats wrote: rockerbikie wrote:[ Those were to raise funds against the Franks. It was a war between Christianity and Pagan Religions at the time period. Raids against the Holy Roman Empire and France was also recorded.
Now that makes sense. Was it a united effort or more of a personal effort to those who cared enough to take some kind of action?
I'm somewhat more inclined to believe a competent salvager/looter than a third world government, particularly given the details of that case.
His story is about as believable as that whole Egypt building a damn to cover up evidence that ancient Egyptians were black thing, even though they'd been building on that damn dam for upwards of 40 years. So yeah. Me no believy the story teller on that one
It was a united efforts of the scandivian pagans and the Saxons vs the Brittish Isles, France and the HRE.
53595
Post by: Palindrome
rockerbikie wrote:It was a united efforts of the scandivian pagans and the Saxons vs the Brittish Isles, France and the HRE.
I find that hard to believe.
46059
Post by: rockerbikie
Not entirely united but in the past when Christians declared holy wars, different religions used to unite. Try to think them as desperate allies, they would not attack each other but they would attack the enemy to steal sacred artifacts from the Christians such as the bones of saints.
27051
Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That
Me!
For years, I bought into the king-of-the-jungle-myth. I don't mind being humiliated on this site, as I suffered the shame of fething it up in a pub quiz. 
Anyway, back OT. The pope lives in the Vatican
7653
Post by: Corpsesarefun
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Me!
For years, I bought into the king-of-the-jungle-myth. I don't mind being humiliated on this site, as I suffered the shame of fething it up in a pub quiz.
Anyway, back OT. The pope lives in the Vatican
Lions do not live in jungles and horses are larger than sheep.
18698
Post by: kronk
Where the hell did this thread's point wander off too? I was having fun learning about common misconceptions.
Grey Templar wrote:Of course we could play it safe and just say he Kronked her. Would be more specific to the situation.
"Hey baby, lets go Kronking together"
That's illegal in most southern states...
54729
Post by: AegisGrimm
I love the myth that medieval armor weighed nearly 100 pounds, as was so heavy that a knight couldn't stand up if fallen, and needed help to get on his horse. As a man who weighs 160 pounds and can run in even 40 pounds of armor, I laugh at that.
Especially as I can turn on the TV and see the guys from Full Metal Jousting, in their 100 pounds of armor, get on their horses and get up unassisted when they are unhorsed and take a roll in the dirt.
Hell, I've seen the actual men from that show at a local Ren Faire. The only part of the myth that is true is that Jousting Knights don't just vault into the saddle- they use a step ladder. And most of that is because their horses are not race horses, they are huge.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Yup, armor was specifically designed to NOT impede your ability to fight.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm11yAXeegg
21720
Post by: LordofHats
You'd think that, knowing knights to be an elite warrior class, people would realize that it only makes sense that their armor not impede their ability to fight
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Maybe the knights deliberatly spread the myth that armor was hard to fight in. So that when they were seen not being slowed the peasents would think they had inhuman strength and power.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
rockerbikie wrote:They were a group of nations. Harold Fairhair united Norway, I don't know who united Sweden though.
Technically it'd be Erik the Holy, although in practise it'd be Birger Jarl. Erik was King of what would become Sweden until he got killed. The power struggle went on until Birger Jarl's son Magnus became king. As he was but a boy, Birger Jarl set about bringing the Rule of Law into common practice by chopping the heads off of rebel noblemen of his own house instead of just beating their mercenary armies and then telling them never to do it again, as was the old custom.
53595
Post by: Palindrome
Grey Templar wrote:Maybe the knights deliberatly spread the myth that armor was hard to fight in. So that when they were seen not being slowed the peasents would think they had inhuman strength and power.
Accoridng to QI one of the main reasons for the myth's popularity is Laurence Olivier. During the filming of Richard III he insisted on being winched onto a horse when wearing armour despite the protestations of the films historical advisor and as he was the star he got his way.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
I'd heard that too.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Palindrome wrote: Grey Templar wrote:Maybe the knights deliberatly spread the myth that armor was hard to fight in. So that when they were seen not being slowed the peasents would think they had inhuman strength and power.
Accoridng to QI one of the main reasons for the myth's popularity is Laurence Olivier. During the filming of Richard III he insisted on being winched onto a horse when wearing armour despite the protestations of the films historical advisor and as he was the star he got his way.
Ah movies. I suspect their responsible for a great many historical myth 
91
Post by: Hordini
LordofHats wrote:Palindrome wrote: Grey Templar wrote:Maybe the knights deliberatly spread the myth that armor was hard to fight in. So that when they were seen not being slowed the peasents would think they had inhuman strength and power.
Accoridng to QI one of the main reasons for the myth's popularity is Laurence Olivier. During the filming of Richard III he insisted on being winched onto a horse when wearing armour despite the protestations of the films historical advisor and as he was the star he got his way.
Ah movies. I suspect their responsible for a great many historical myth
I've read that the myth originated in Mark Twain's "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court." It's been seen in movies since, of course. Thanks for nothing, Samuel Clemens! 
15594
Post by: Albatross
Van Gogh didn't cut his ear off. He cut off the lobe of his left ear.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
That the upside down cross is a symbol of satan. Actually when Peter was crucified, he asked for it to be upside down, because he though he was'nt worthy to die the same way as jesus. This, An upside down cross actually humbles you before god. Either that, or the pope is really fricking metal 
5470
Post by: sebster
Palindrome wrote:It does, but only the German armies were capable of launching succesful Blitzkreig style attacks in the early war period; quite simply no one else was properly set up for it, the other combatants lacked the strong armoured formations and/or lacked the cohesion to carry through with a fast breakthrough attack.
Sure. There's no denying there was what ended up being blitzkreig style operations undertaken in the attack on France, and that French deployment (no reserves, no stronghold preparations) meant those operations were stunningly successful.
But the point is these attacks were not part of an overall strategy in the German High Command to what is now understood as Blitzkreig. That was only seen later in Soviet methods, where you'd see an overall plan to attack in force at a specific location to achieve, with the overall plan to destroy enemy positions in the rear and isolate forward units.
The term 'Blitzkrieg' was actually coined by an American (IIRC) journalist.
Yeah, though I thought the journalist was British. Referring to the attack on Poland, I believe? Automatically Appended Next Post: Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:During the 1930s, Britian made and sold more guns than anybody (including America) and out spent everybody. Where as the Germans (being in Europe) spent more money on tanks, Britian's money went on the navy (what a surprise) and a massive upgrade of Singapore's defences (for all the good it did) plus major investments in Radar and the RAF. It's always been believed that Britian wasn't ready for war in the 1930s. It was, just reluctant to get involved.
That's somewhat true, but overall doesn't really capture the full story.
Yes, much of Britain's defense spending was committed to the Royal Navy, in many cases on maintaining old, pre-WWI vessels. And much went to that giant white elephant, Fortress Singapore. And France was committed to its own white elephant the Maginot Line.
But over and above that, Germany spent more on their military. They brought it over 10% of GDP in 1936, and to almost 15% by 1938. Neither Britain or France, despite massive military expansion from 1934 onwards, exceeded 7% before the outbreak of war.
And despite all of that, with a more effective defence the German attack on France still should have failed. But it didn't, and the rest is history.
91
Post by: Hordini
sebster wrote:
The term 'Blitzkrieg' was actually coined by an American (IIRC) journalist.
Yeah, though I thought the journalist was British. Referring to the attack on Poland, I believe?
I read somewhere that the Germans actually used the term Bewegungskrieg (roughly, maneuver warfare). I'm not sure when that term first started being used, but I wouldn't be surprised if it predated WWII.
5470
Post by: sebster
Hordini wrote:I read somewhere that the Germans actually used the term Bewegungskrieg (roughly, maneuver warfare). I'm not sure when that term first started being used, but I wouldn't be surprised if it predated WWII.
That term predates Germany It's an old Prussian doctrine. In the inter-war period the Germans came up with lots of ideas for breaking the trench warfare stalemate of WWI, because they knew that if such a stalemate occurred again they would lose again. Many of these old ideas went back to the old Prussian doctrine of manoeuvre warfare.
In this sense moving through the Ardennes and looking to isolate both the Maginot Line can be seen as manoeuvre warfare. But the thing is, if all blitzkrieg means is to isolate and attack the critical points in the enemy's military, then blitzkreig as a concept is really nothing new at all. It's what most everyone was trying to do, in some form or another, since the Napoleonic wars (and before then, by some arguments). Its how the whole of the Eastern Front campaign was fought in WWI.
The bigger thing, really, was that once Guderian achieved breakthrough in the Ardennes, he sensed that the way was open all the way to the sea, and he took it on his own initiative to go there. The High Command just scrambled to keep him supplied. Threatening to cut off the British and French advancing through Belgium, and threatening Paris itself, that's what made it blitzkreig.
For an example of blitzkreig planned out at the top level (and not just achieved through circumstance and officer initiative), look at the Soviet other example of Operation Bagration. Like the Germans in their attack on France, the Soviets planned elaborate ruse attacks to draw enemy strength from their real objective, followed by a focussed attack, and breakthrough leading to the encirclement of the enemy. The difference, though, is that once the enemy collapsed the Soviets had in their plans the drive as fast and as hard as they could into Poland and towards Berlin.
7653
Post by: Corpsesarefun
Fun fact, the word Bewegungskrieg is longer than the word Blitzkrieg.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Doesn't sound as cool either
91
Post by: Hordini
I thought it sounded pretty cool.
5394
Post by: reds8n
http://www.thearma.org/essays/TopMyths.htm
Top Myths of
Renaissance Martial Arts
The diverse range of misconceptions and erroneous beliefs within historical fencing studies today is considerable. But there are perhaps some myths that are more common, and more pervasive, than others. This webpage presents an ongoing project that will continually try in an informal and condensed manner to help address some of these mistaken beliefs.
Serious investigation and exploration of the legitimate historical sources of actual Renaissance Martial Arts (or "MARE" for short) today is still in its early stages. It is no difficult thing to accept that few today have the opportunity and resources by which to pursue the study of historical fencing, academically and physically, to an exceptional degree of proficiency and certainty. The obvious fact is that most people are not equipped to properly evaluate a great deal of the information and opinions about historical fighting and arms and armor they may encounter, as they lack the physical skills, historical materials, and scholarly experience by which to do so confidently. What would even constitute such expertise in a subject matter long on opinions and short on knowledge is itself open to discussion.
Unfortunately, as with much historical information many claims are often tentative and can neither be verified nor falsified but only weighed according to what evidence has been accumulated. But when it comes to historical close combat reliable evidence is frequently missing or substituted with myth.
For the vast majority of students of historical swords and swordplay, education in the subject is self-directed and ad hoc. It should come as no great surprise then, that despite a keen interest in this subject some enthusiasts are nonetheless extraordinarily misinformed about historical arms and armor and their actual use. Misconceptions and distortions long present in popular media combined with the pervasive influence of inaccurate sources of information all but guarantee the problem. Some of this is merely due to insufficient quality learning materials while another element of it is admittedly due to willful ignorance on the part of some enthusiasts.
It sometimes seems the case that because for so long there have been no credible experts or demonstrable expertise in this subject it has allowed most anyone to feel especially confident or well informed just by following the generally available sources of conventional wisdom, whether or not they are credible, accurate, or complete. But, one would hope that because there are so few who can speak with authority on matters of historical European fighting arts, especially swordplay, such would now be readily welcomed by every interested person.
For some reason though, when it comes to swords and swordplay, there is, for a few, a sort of emotional investment involved in holding certain beliefs that often precludes continued education or improvement of opinions. It is not all that unusual to encounter an attitude of essentially, "I don't really know anything about this and even if I did I wouldn't change my mind." This is all the more remarkable considering that what many already believe is largely acquired from exposure to the information of others that they themselves at some point had to read, view, or simply assume.
The following are those myths we most frequently encounter today provided with a brief refutation of the notion. While each itself could be the subject of pages of material complete with citations of documented sources of supporting evidence, and explanatory footnotes covering their origin and promulgation, they are addressed here for quick reference only in summary:
1. There were no "martial arts" in Western European civilization.
False. Combative systems developed the world over, and Europe from the time of the Ancient Greeks through the 19th century had indigenous traditions of highly effective and sophisticated fighting arts that were passed down and recorded. Though these skills eventually altered, atrophied, or became extinct due to changes in military technology and social conditions, these methods and teachings from the Medieval and Renaissance periods were well documented at the time in numerous volumes. Their efficacy and formidability is virtually self-evident. The practice of the martial arts of Renaissance Europe (which we might conveniently abbreviate as “MARE”) is a subject that has to be reconstituted and restored by holistic study of its surviving teachings. Experts from the 14th to 17th centuries left behind for us unmatched historical documentation for their personal combat methods covering the reality of self-defense in battle, duel, or street encounter. This vast technical literature represents for us "time-capsules" of authenticity for us, in that they are undiluted and unpolluted by the civilianizing de-martialization that later occurs as generation after generation no longer has need to practice such integrated combat skills. See: An Introduction to Historical European Martial Arts and Renaissance Martial Arts Literature and The Martial Arts of Renaissance Europe.
2. Medieval and Renaissance fencing were not real "arts" of codified fighting systems based on any higher scientific principles, but just collections of "tricks" and unconnected techniques with some wrestling thrown in.
False. The prejudice that Medieval or Renaissance close combat skill was based on little more than heavy weapons and strong blows and lacked any larger "art" of established principles and systematic concepts is largely the result of ignorance by 18th and 19th century fencing masters and fencing writers. Having transitioned to narrower and more specialized applications of swordsmanship, they lost not only the old skills but understanding of how and why they existed as well as by what manner they were taught and practiced. From their perspective, primarily focused as they were on gentlemanly duels of single combat with single identical swords under fair conditions, their perspective was skewed and flawed. With little surviving from pre-Renaissance fighting arts, they interpreted unfamiliar armors, weapons, and heavier sword types designed for battlefield or street fighting only through the prism of what little they understood from their Baroque fencing style. That they did so with typical Enlightenment-era presumption or Victorian-era arrogance is understandable, though incorrect. The influence of their view survives to modern times. Today however it is an established historical fact that Medieval and Renaissance fighting was highly systematized and incorporated a diverse range of personal combat skills and weaponry well outside that of the more limited craft of 18th and 19th century fencing. See: Historical European Martial Arts and Renaissance Martial Arts Literature.
3. Medieval and Renaissance unarmed fighting methods were less developed and less sophisticated than elsewhere in the world.
False. There were a variety of grappling styles and wrestling sports practiced across Europe since ancient times. The surviving manuals and illustrated study guides featuring these teachings reveal a sophisticated understanding of unarmed self-defense and combat wrestling techniques, including understanding of: throws, joint locks, groundfighting, wrist locks, open hand blows, kicks, bone breaking, and even pressure-point manipulation. Though they emphasized grappling over pugilism and a preference for the power of armed over unarmed fighting, to argue any of this is somehow "less developed" or "inferior" to other versions is a non-falsifiable premise since we cannot truly know the full extent and skill of Medieval and Renaissance combatives and their modern reconstruction is still in its infancy. The reason these skills faded and were lost is almost entirely due to the impact of handguns and other firearms on Western civilization. See: Grappling & Wrestling in Renaissance Fencing.
4. Knights in full plate armor were clumsy and slow.
False. The popular belief in untutored knights clumsily swinging crude swords while awkwardly lumbering around in heavy armor is inaccurate and uninformed. Mistaken claims that Medieval armored horsemen had become clanking tanks or that unhorsed a knight was at his foe's mercy have become common even among some medieval historians. A warrior in plate armor was far from being the sluggish lobster so frequently mischaracterized by military writers. While an armored man was not as agile as an unarmored one, plate armor overall was well balanced and ingeniously designed to permit considerable maneuverability and nimbleness. This fact is clearly expressed in the fighting literature on armored combat and born out by modern experiments in both antique armor specimens and historically accurate reproductions. Unlike what has been notoriously misrepresented in popular culture, a well-trained and physically conditioned man fighting in full harness was typically a formidable opponent (and there were many different kinds of armor for foot or mounted combat). But this is not to say that fighting in full plate armor was not tiresome or stifling. Armor restricted breathing and ability to ventilate body heat, as well as limited vision and hearing. If armor did not work well it would not have been around for so long in so many different forms. (For more on this see: "Medieval Armor: Plated Perfection" in Military History, July 2005).
5. A science of thrust fencing replaced cruder cutting swordplay by the 16th century.
False. Thrusting was an important and integral part of Western fencing since the time of the ancient Greeks and Romans. Thrusting was long recognized as a dangerous and deadly technique in Medieval fencing as far back as the 13th century. Narrow tapering swords with very sharp points, both single and double-handed, were widely used for both military and civilian fighting beginning in the 14th century. These were the ancestors of those longer, lighter, narrower swords appearing in the early 16th century for street-fighting and duelling. Specialized thrusting swords with stiff heavy blades for puncturing the gaps in plate armor were also produced as early as the 14th century and versions continued to be used into the mid-17th. By the early 16th century, as armor use declined due to increasingly effective firearms while the need for individual close-combat skills decreased on the battlefield for similar reasons, there was an increased amount of civilian combat and duelling. Large crowded urban centers saw an increase in private armed fighting among all classes and a thrusting method of unarmed fencing suited to these encounters quickly developed. Under these conditions new lighter, longer, quick thrusting single-hand swords, called rapiers and specifically intended for unarmored combat, gained advantage over more traditional military cut-and-thrust swords. They were soon adopted by the aristocracy as the dueling weapon of choice. During the 16th century, as this new "foyning fence" (thrusting swordplay) using long narrow blades for unarmored civilian fighting took hold, it was seen as a new innovation. In keeping with the renewed cultural interest in all things classical at the time, it was also viewed as reflecting something of the enlightened thrusting swordplay of the ancient Romans. While over the next two centuries a methodical thrust-oriented swordplay came to dominate civilian fencing and duelling in Western Europe, especially among the aristocracy, styles of cut-and-thrust swordplay continued in use and new types of swords were still being devised all the way up to the early 20th century. The orthodox and now cliché view of fencing history for sometime has been that at some point in the early 16th century men suddenly realized that thrusting was better than cutting and quickly lightened their weapons and discarded their armor, which was already being made obsolete by guns and crossbows. The usual belief goes that along with change in sword forms eventually came a more "scientific" and "proper" mode of fencing that leads in a linear evolution to today's modern fencing sport. This is inaccurate and the truth is much more complicated and much more interesting. Fencing history and European martial arts were far more diverse and sophisticated than once believed, with many branches, styles, and methods, each adapted to a particular niche at a particular place and time. See: Questions and Answers About the Rapier and The Myth of Cutting vs. Thrusting Swords.
6. Medieval swords were heavy and weighed tens of pounds.
False. Despite what is continually misrepresented in popular media and literature on fencing, fighting swords of the Medieval and Renaissance eras were fairly light, well-balanced, ingeniously designed, exceptionally well-made, and properly proportioned for their purposes. They were neither heavy nor poorly balanced for the challenges they faced and the tasks they were designed for. See: What did Historical Swords Weigh? and The Weighty Issue of Two-Handed Greatswords.
7. Weighty swords were at first needed to bludgeon and crush armor and only later when armor use declined did swords become lighter for skillfully thrusting with the point.
False. The notion that heavy swords were "necessary" to crudely bash and hack at combatants in heavy armor is a considerably inaccurate and misinformed one. Virtually all Medieval close-combat can be shown to have involved some sort of systematic basis and principled action involving cutting and thrusting techniques. These were optimized for the type of arms and armors encountered at the time. Thrusting has always been important in close-combat, especially armored swordplay, where it is actually the primary form of attack precisely because hacking and chopping are typically much less effective against armors. (It was after all following the era of armored combat that large curved chopping blades actually experienced a resurgence in European cavalries.) Cutting blades naturally require a certain mass to produced optimal impacts, whereas thrusting swords ideally benefit from lightness that permits an agile point. Quite often specialized swords developed as ideal for one situation or condition of fighting would prove disastrous if employed in another. The later development of much lighter single-hand thrusting swords therefore reflected a transition away from the more complex self-defense challenges of a military environment and more toward civilian concerns of unarmored single combat. Compared to modern featherweight versions, historical swords that for centuries proved effective and formidable fighting tools can therefore only be viewed as somehow "heavy" or "awkward" if you are unused to properly training with them at length following proper methods.
8. Swords were not primary weapons during the Middle Ages.
False. Swords were neither cheap nor easy to make and took considerably more training to wield effectively than did simple axes, spears, and club-like weapons. For these reasons swords were also associated with knights and men-at-arms more so than with common soldiers. Other weapons were certainly more numerous on the battlefield but the sword was still a primary weapon of choice for close-combat precisely due to its versatility and effectiveness against a range of different opponents, armored or unarmored, foot or mounted. The sword in its various forms was the most personal weapon, the most prestigious, and the most resourceful. While by the 16th century it did come to find a greater role in civilian self-defense than in war, its effectiveness was undeniable and reason why it persisted in so many different forms for so long. Although the sword is sometimes described as being a secondary weapon in the Middle Ages and even as one that was more a badge of nobility or authority than practical, this can confidently be dismissed as inaccurate. While the lore of the sword as a noble "knightly" weapon is unmistakable, the evidence for its use by non-knightly warriors in military and civilian self-defense during the period is considerable. Considering their ubiquity in literature and art throughout the 11th to 17th centuries, the volumes of material written on methods for fighting with these tools, the extensive variety of types produced compared to other weapons from the era, their versatility as fighting implements, and their military as well as civilian application, their value practical is self-evident.
9. Only knights were permitted to use swords in the Middle Ages.
False. Though the sword is closely identified with knights and knighthood, virtually any foot soldier or fighting man could employ a sword and was expected to know something about doing so. Many early fencing teachers were themselves commoners, and urban militias made up of ordinary citizens were frequently equipped with swords. Knights might also have retinues of non-knightly retainers who were armed with swords and mercenary bands were a common element of medieval warfare. By the late 15th century entire fighting guilds and schools run by common tradesmen and craftsmen trained and taught the use of all manner of swords. There were several attempts at different times in different parts of Europe to restrict the wearing or owning of swords by commoners (or their use in judicial duels), but such attempts at arms control were frequently violated and largely unenforceable. By the 16th century, the wearing of some sort of sword by any fighting-man, nobleman, gentleman, militiaman, mercenary, soldier, sailor, tradesman, guildsman, or brigand was fairly common in most cities of Western Europe.
10. Medieval and Renaissance swords were generally of inferior quality and workmanship.
False. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that Medieval and Renaissance swords were anything but superbly made and well-crafted weapons carefully designed as highly effective fighting tools. Metallurgical study of swords has confirmed they reflected considerable knowledge of how to produce resilient high-carbon blades with hard steel edges, while investigation of their designs has demonstrated their utility and functionality. Fighting men of this time were no fools and for centuries their self-defense weapons reflected the highest level of technology and craftsmanship. The quality and accuracy of modern reproductions of such swords, however, is an entirely different matter. See: Critical Characteristics of Historical Swords and "Hey, Mister, is that sword real?"
11. Medieval and Renaissance swords were not very sharp.
False. There are different degrees of "sharpness" and a sword was sharpened according to the material it was expected to penetrate and the degree of bevel its edge geometry could support. Different sword types required and permitted different degrees of sharpness. But even a dull or unsharpened edge could produce a serious wound provided it struck strongly and had sufficient mass and hardness. Surviving sword specimens, the instructions for their use, and historical descriptions of the injuries they produced confirm that Medieval and Renaissance swords were indeed very sharp, though not always to same degree along their entire length.
12. Curved swords were not known in Medieval and Renaissance Europe.
False. Curved blades indigenous to Western Europe were known since the time of Ancient Greece and some types were used until the 20th century. During the Medieval and Renaissance eras several types of curved blade were used by both knights and common soldiers. Some of these resemble Eastern scimitars and sabres while others were unique forms. These swords go by names such as falchion, badelaire, braquemart, storta, and many more. See: The Myth of Cutting vs. Thrusting Swords.
13. Fighting with a sword and shield was the typical method of Medieval foot-combat.
False. Despite their ubiquity in popular media's depictions of Medieval combat, and their close association with knights and medieval warriors, by the 14th century large shields were actually uncommon and all but disappeared from battles and single combats. This decline continued as the decades wore on. Rather than a single-handed short sword with large shield, soldiers, knights and men-at-arms were equipped typically with double-handed weapons (whether polearms, hafted weapons, or double-hand swords), or with two weapon combinations (swords with maces, axes, daggers, etc.). Large shields survived as specialized tools mostly for sieges and judicial combats but were not primary equipment. Smaller bucklers and other hand shields were by far more common than larger shields and typically served as a principal means of training.
14. Sword and buckler fencing was practiced only by commoners.
False. Considerable evidence establishes the weapon combination served for several centuries as a primary training method for fencing among all classes, especially knights. Many study guides on its use were produced over the centuries. It was considered a military style, even though civilians did frequently train in it. By the late 16th century it fell out of general favor as a common tool for war as well as street defense and private duel. See: The Sword & Buckler Tradition.
15. Fencing reached a "golden age" in Europe during the 19th century.
False. This can be proven demonstrably inaccurate on several levels. By the early 18th century, the vast array of traditional arms and armor as well as heavy cutting blades for self-defense, duel, or battlefield close combat were already all but obsolete and no style based upon earlier Medieval and Renaissance cutting swordplay survived. The foyning fence of the civilian smallsword, descended from the 17th century rapier, provided the foundation for nearly all fencing instruction thereafter. Fencers in this period, disconnected from and ignorant of martial arts from previous centuries, came therefore to incorrectly believe that their own method of fencing for gentlemanly single duels with light slender thrusting swords or light dueling sabres was a superior "evolutionary" advance over the vicious and brutal ways of the distant past. Concern for aesthetics and form came to dominate how certain men chose to defend themselves. The modern myth then developed that "crude and simplistic" cutting had been replaced by "superior" thrusting. With the emergence of modern militaries in the new age of advanced firearms and cannon, the environment and conditions under which men now fought in earnest with swords and other hand weapons was much less frequent, far less demanding and not nearly as diverse as it had been in the pre-Baroque era. Fencing by the 19th century became far more specialized and narrowly focused on formal duels of gentlemanly single-combat with secondary considerations for light cavalry. Even among the limited military use of sabers, broadswords, and cutlasses, gone now were any concerns for fighting under varied circumstances against multiple opponents, dissimilar weaponry, pole-arms, shields, or armors. Virtually totally absent now were concerns about closing-in techniques for seizing and disarming, grappling and wrestling, two-weapon combinations, etc.; in effect, all the considerations that encompass all-out fighting for a martial art of battlefield utility or general self-defense. Fencing also shifted in this era toward less serious and less potentially dangerous duelling to eventually become a sporting game. Thus, rather than any "golden age" of refined and "superior science" of defense, fencing in this period metamorphosed into a sport and therefore can be viewed instead as a remnant of earlier more sophisticated and dynamic European martial traditions. See: Historical Fencing Studies: The British Heritage.
16. Traditions of Medieval and Renaissance fighting arts survived as a "living lineage."
False. Over time through disuse and neglect the necessity for close-combat skill with older arms and armor vanished and were replaced by newer concerns primarily for ritual duels and sporting play. The very reason we must now reconstruct and revive these lost arts from historical source literature is precisely because they first grew irrelevant, then obsolete, soon atrophied, then finally became almost wholly extinct. That is why so little is known about them. No one living today was trained by any historical (i.e., Medieval or Renaissance) Master of Defence or even by anyone who themselves was indirectly trained by one. No one living today has experience in using authentic Medieval and Renaissance weaponry in life and death combat nor was trained by anyone who had. No one living today was taught by anyone who retained unchanging knowledge of these old styles and lost systems. Nor can anyone living today document with verifiable evidence that any genuine surviving teachings or methods from these old methods persisted unbroken down through the centuries as either a local custom or cultural tradition. Time has severed the links. There was a cultural and pedagogical disconnect. While there are core similarities and fundamental principles universal to the concept of armed combat that have remained unchanged, our modern fencing is based largely upon Baroque-era styles and not upon the weaponry and skills of earlier European martial arts. Modern styles of fencing retain very little of Medieval and Renaissance era teachings and techniques. Instead they have for several centuries focused on substantially different kinds of tools used under considerably different conditions of practice. Starting in the late 19th century a handful of historians of arms and fencing masters began an effort to explore earlier fighting methods, which they recognized as having been abandoned. But even then they had to struggle to rebuild and recover what little remained from those styles within their modern fencing as they knew no Medieval and Renaissance teachings still existed among masters or within schools. However, despite much pioneering experiment their respectable efforts resulted in an understanding that is now viewed as incomplete and flawed. There are no "living traditions" or "living lineages" of Medieval and Renaissance fencing. There is no method of combat-effective teachings (i.e., devised for and intended for use in real combat) from these eras that has survived as a martial down to even the 18th century, let alone later times. What little that has survived of earlier swordplay and weapon skills within modern fencing is derivative of fencing for ritualized dueling applied now within a purely sporting context. These styles, even the cut-and-thrust versions, are post-Renaissance in origin with little to no connection to the far older extinct systems now at last being systematically investigated and reconstructed. There are no more historical masters of Medieval or Renaissance fighting arts, nothing was hidden away or "secretly" preserved, and modern fencing masters are not the repositories for these styles of swordsmanship. Those claiming otherwise are frauds and deceivers. See: Historical Fencing Studies: The British Heritage & Martial Art or Combat Sport.
17. These extinct martial arts cannot be accurately reconstructed or credibly resurrected by relying on books.
False. We can recover the teachings and the fighting techniques from the voluminous technical manuals and highly detailed study guides the old masters left behind (many of which are heavily illustrated) provided we vigorously train and seriously experiment. We can further work now with these teachings derived from authentic historical sources in drill, exercise, and serious contact sparing, not merely some stunt routine or choreographed performance. This process of interpretation and application is not easy and requires considerable continuous effort, academically and physically, to test or revise assumptions. But we can reach a confident approximation of these lost fighting systems by following in the same manner by which they trained and the methods by which they practiced. The challenge is to do so in a manner that is historically valid and martially sound. What we redevelop may not be the exact art they had, since we do not study it for survival anymore. But nonetheless, it is no less accurate and authentic than any other "extant tradition" of martial art that has purportedly survived unaltered by oral tradition to present times without such a wealth of supporting literary and iconographic sources. Uniquely, the source literature of Renaissance Martial Arts itself tells us that reliance on books, while incomplete on its own, is vital for learning.
Yes, we do have a continual task of subjective interpretation and analysis facing us -- even as we gain increasing confidence in understanding the totality of their teachings -- but such interpretation and subsequent experimental application is a necessary aspect of its revival. The means by which these skills were once acquired may be what is now missing to us, but the methods themselves were preserved. After all, the real richness of any martial tradition is in its physical movement and lessons on applying core principles, the things learned in person from those who know. This instructional literature, surviving among voluminous treatises and collected works, is therefore something that as a community of students we have very much inherited. Despite being extinct and little known, this material is unequaled in its technical and iconographic detail. It arguably represents the most well documented martial arts teachings in history. While we may never know with full confidence how our craft was authentically performed or practiced by the historical Masters of Defence, our source teachings don’t suffer from being sportified, commercialized, or mythologized. Thus, we have come to know --with great depth -- their theories, principles, concepts, techniques, and philosophy of self-defense. See: The Modern Study of Renaissance Martial Arts.
18. Some swords could cut through plate armor.
False. Although maile armor ("chain mail") was not foolproof against strong sword cuts, a fighter in full plate armor was however effectively immune to the edged blows of swords. There are no real-life accounts of edge blows effectively cutting through an armored harness; that is one reason why plate armor was so popular and so much effort put into perfecting it. Though swords were not capable of cutting through plate armor, a fighter would not avoid striking edge blows against an armored opponent if it might bruise or stun him, knock him about, tear into or crack open his helmet or visor, slice through straps and tear off pieces, or otherwise weaken his defense against a more effective technique such as a thrust. While sword cuts that would have been debilitating or lethal on bare flesh might have no effect against soft or hard types of armor, if delivered with great force they could sometimes traumatized the tissue and bone beneath and thereby incapacitate a target. Although, to be accurate, not all armor was of equal quality and some type of helms could indeed be partially split by edge blows from swords. While there are many images from Medieval sources of swords cutting into armor or through helmets, nothing in the historical accounts of actual armored combat or the voluminous instructional texts on armored fighting supports this as being common. Modern experiments, when performed under realistic conditions with historically accurate weapons using proper technique against historically accurate reproduction armor, have yet to convincingly duplicate what is depicted in such images. An armored fighter was still vulnerable to sharply-pointed tapering swords and other weapons employed in thrusting as well as to crushing from specialized anti-armor weapons. Yet even thrusts against plate armor were difficult to succeed with because it was intentionally designed to deflect and resist them, thus gaps and joints were typically targeted. Yet descriptions of fights with specialized weapons designed for fighting plate armor, such as pole-axes and maces, reveal even they were able to pierce through armor only infrequently. More often they were effective in simply denting and cracking armor to stun and bruise the wearer into a vulnerable condition. But, given strong effort and a hit to the right spot, a rigid point stabbing strongly could puncture armor even if its cutting edge would not. (See: "Medieval Armor: Plated Perfection" in Military History, July 2005).
19. There was no grappling or wrestling in rapier fencing.
False. Close-in techniques for seizing an opponent and throwing them, trapping their weapon, locking up their arm or otherwise immobilizing them, were common in Medieval and Renaissance fighting. They formed a vital foundation for all systems of defense and indeed grappling or wrestling were considered by many masters to be the basis of all fencing. Historical accounts of armed combat where these moves were employed are numerous while fencing texts from the period almost always included detailed sections on the craft or even entire works devoted to it. They even included kicking, empty hand strikes, joint locks, and nerve pinches. This applied to rapier fencing almost as much as it did to earlier forms of cut-and-thrust swordplay. See: Grappling & Wrestling in Renaissance Fencing.
20. Formal duels of honor were the preferred means of settling fights in the Renaissance.
False. The term "duel" can apply to a wide range of ritualized and formal fighting from judicial combats to street fights to formal duels of honor in the Medieval and Renaissance eras. The history of duelling in the Renaissance period has however tended to focus upon those accounts by a few chroniclers of the aristocracy who recorded the duels of nobles for their audiences of upper class peers; the ones with the leisure time to concern themselves with codes of honor and formal challenges to their reputation, character, and social status. These works have tended to focus upon formal duel and challenges and not on the more common everyday scuffles, street-fights, rencounters, affrays, ambushes, brawls, drunken violence, and assassinations, which predominated. Men went about armed after all not so they could just agree to formal combats at some later appointed time and place, but because they lived in a very violent world where self-defense was a necessity against the daily possibility of personal assault. Going about so armed probably prevented as many of these fights as it aggravated. However, popular culture and fencing histories since the 19th century (a time in which formal duels increased to become the norm at the same time their danger and lethality actually decreased) has tended to emphasize duels among cavalier gentlemen as being the standard of the period. This imprecise view more or less survives still today.
21. Only nobles fought duels.
False. Commoners as well as nobles in different parts of Europe fought different kinds of duels, both official and ad hoc. Judicial duels between commoners often had special rules in place concerning the conditions as distinct from those permitted nobles. Challenges to single combat between commoners, whether as sudden street-fights or more private affairs, both emulated as well as influenced the duels of honor among the aristocracy.
22. The rapier developed to defeat armor.
False. The rapier was specifically developed for unarmored civilian combat and was not a weapon of war for the battlefield. While it is frequently stated that larger swords were produced to face heavier armorers, the fact is, over time, swords actually got larger as armor use declined. Swords also eventually became lighter and thinner only as effective firearms all but eliminated the customary value of armor. During the age of plate armor special swords for piercing into its gaps and joints were developed but these stiff, heavy, edgeless weapons (sometimes known as tucks or estocs) were a different branch of sword family and not the forerunner of the later rapier. The true rapier developed rather out of existing cut-and-thrust arming swords ("side swords") for the purpose of urban self-defense and had no relation to traditional knightly weapons of war for fighting heavy armor. Indeed, many 16th and 17th century accounts refer to the inability of rapiers to pierce maile armor or even simple heavy leather coats. See: Questions and Answers About the Rapier.
23. The rapier was strictly a gentleman's weapon.
False. A weapon is not invented to fight itself, but created to fight (or outfight) existing arms and armor. So it was with the rapier. Renaissance swordsmen did not create it over night so that they could then go about asking others to duel them with the new invention. The rapier may have helped encouraged the later craze for private duels of honor but it was not their cause nor exclusive weapon. The rapier, interestingly, has no direct lineage to knightly weapons of war, which were the traditional tools of noble fighting men and those originally employed in their duels and judicial combats. Though it descended from cut-and-thrust style arming swords suited to military use, the rapier actually originated among common citizens and soldiers with their frequent street-fighting, brawling, urban gang wars, and yes, duelling. The earliest references to the weapon in use surrounds urban homicides, criminal assaults, and common fighting guilds, and was not immediately associated with either fencing masters or aristocratic duels of honor (as it was in time to become so closely linked to and perfected for). As the weapon and its new method of fencing became more and more associated with genteel duels of honor, wearing and using it became more than ever an expression of class and wealth (or at least pretensions to both).
24. True rapiers could make lethal or debilitating edge cuts.
False. No historical rapier text teaches, implies, or expresses that edge blows with true rapiers, that is, the slender narrow blade forms developed in the 1570s or 1580s, killed by cut. Indeed, several historical sources specifically criticized these kind of rapiers for their lack of lethal cutting capacity. No historical accounts in the voluminous evidence of rapier combats describe rapiers as killing with cuts (or debilitating limbs by edge blows) but only as producing assorted lacerations and scratches. Modern experiments with replica weapons as well as antique specimens supports this understanding. Despite what for decades has been depicted as being performed in stunt fencing with these weapons, true rapiers (unlike their cut-and-thrust cousins) simply lack the edge bevel, blade width, and weapon mass to produce lethal cutting wounds. As ideal thrusting swords that's simply not what they were designed to do, otherwise why even produce any wider cutting blades? See: Questions and Answers About the Rapier.
25. The Renaissance rapier replaced the older heavy and crude Medieval "broadsword."
False. The common view of European sword history has been that of a "progressive line" from wide "weighty" and "awkward" Medieval cutting blades used with one or two hands toward lighter cut-and-thrust forms, then the slender thrusting rapier, and finally the agile diminutive smallsword. This pervading view is simplistic, inaccurate, and misleading. The "evolution" of swords and fencing in Western Europe did not occur in a straight line and did not proceed in an environment immune from the technological and social transformation wrought by firearms and cannon. Medieval swords themselves existed in several forms, many of which were quite narrow. As swords necessary to fight against heavier weapons and armors became less necessary by the early 16th century due to changing military technology, a variety of versatile cut-and-thrust military swords came into use. From these the innovative rapier soon developed as a light, quick, thrusting weapon for self-defense in street fighting and urban duelling. Rapiers were ideal for this kind of unarmored civilian single-combat. But on the whole rapiers never faced and defeated military swords so that the later were somehow abandoned or discarded and fighting men switched over to the new sword en masse. A considerable variety of large cutting and thrusting blades in fact persisted in wide use throughout the rapier's popular run of roughly 200-years. It is a matter of history that swords and fencing in Europe each altered in response to changing martial and social factors. It is important to remember that in the Renaissance, as in the Middle Ages, there was continual experimentation going on in the development of effective sword designs and hence, continual exploration in ways of using them. The social and cultural changes in the early 1500s that produced the rapier and its affiliated schools of fence, as well as those in the late 1600s which brought about the smallsword, must each be viewed within their own martial context. Sword designs did not change by themselves. Men changed them. They changed them to do new things or better things that previous existing kinds of swords did not. It is by identifying and understanding just what those things were that we can better understand the history and metamorphosis of swords.
26. The 18th century smallsword defeated and replaced the longer, slower, clumsier rapier.
False. There is no evidence that longer thrusting blades for unarmored combat were somehow deemed suddenly inferior to shorter and lighter ones so that fighting men switched to it out of necessity. There is also no evidence that rapiers were either defeated or overcome by a new design of quicker thrusting sword. No accounts of sword duels or combats are known to substantially support such a view. The earliest smallsword fencing texts also do not address the gradual change in sword styles and the commensurate altering of technique that took place in civilian swordplay during the mid-to-late 17th century. This process of transition itself did not occur all at once. The Baroque smallsword developed among the aristocracy from the rapier rather as a more convenient and more elegant weapon of formal gentlemanly duels at a time when swords themselves (especially inconveniently long ones) were becoming increasingly obsolete for war as well as irrelevant for general self-defense. The smallsword (court-sword or walking-sword) was easy to manage and carry about crowded towns, when riding in carriages or wearing with ornate formal clothing in an age when aesthetics and style was increasingly important within aristocratic culture. It reflected a style of fighting emphasizing deportment, composure, grace, finesse, and proper decorum rather than sheer martial effectiveness and the weapon was often worn solely as ornamentation by anyone professing gentility. It was an effective tool but did not regularly face, nor was it called upon to resist, the diverse range of weapons and opponents that its Renaissance ancestor the rapier encountered. The lighter quicker smallsword also did not on its own cause the dagger to vanish as a defensive companion weapon of single-combat or duelling. Rather, it was the dagger's social stigma and close-in lethality that discouraged its use among gentlemen duelists. Daggers, being shorter and lighter than swords, are extremely dangerous and difficult to combat when in close. Doing away with them in civilian swordplay reduced the lethality of formal duels and made the ritual safer for gentlemen fencers to better avoid the more potentially lethal outcomes that such weapons tended to promote. The smallsword's ascendancy in civilian duels lasted some 200 years. It succeeded the rapier, but did not replace it entirely and cannot be viewed as either superior or inferior to it. Instead, it was adapted to the particular niche of its age. But, in keeping with views toward advancement in science and technology, it is understandable that fencers from its time would eventually come to see it as an evolution over swords that had been long out of common use. See: Questions and Answers About the Rapier.
27. Prior to the 16th century, swords were used only for "offense" and not in "defensive" actions.
False. An oft-encountered assertion in writings on swords and fencing history is that prior to the 16th century swords were not used for "guarding". The usual assertion is that fighting men instead relied on their shields and their armor alone for defense and never their sword. This inaccurate view so widely accepted in the 19th century is false for a number of reasons. Fighting postures that employ a sword to ward or protect as well as threaten are inherent to any form of swordplay (or for that matter, to the effective use of nearly any archaic hand-weapon, ranging from a dagger to a spear to an axe). A warrior carried a shield to protect himself from attack but could certainly use it offensively as a secondary weapon. He put on armor in case he was hit not so that he could be hit. No fighting man was going to purposely receive a blow on his armor if he could help it. If he could avoid a blow entirely or deflect it with his off hand he obviously did not have to use his sword for that purpose and was thereby left free to use it in counter-attack. This was not any deficiency of "parrying" at work in Medieval and Renaissance fencing, but a quite valid and intentional methodology. Earlier fencing styles did indeed have an assortment of efficient ways for defending against attacks with their swords alone. The primary means of defending with the sword to was a counter-strike that simultaneously deflected an oncoming blow and struck back. The secondary means was to just knock it aside, close and intercept it, or else actively receive it in a manner that permitted a rapid return strike. The least desirable or effective was to passively block an attack with a static position.
28. Parrying cuts with the edge of a cutting sword was a common and preferred means of defense in Medieval and Renaissance swordplay.
False. There is no direct evidence in Medieval and Renaissance fencing literature (or within historical accounts and fictional tales of sword combat) for blocking cutting blows with the edge of a cutting sword as being a common, let alone preferred, action. There is actually considerable evidence instructing not to do so. Active defense was instead achieved by hitting the oncoming blade edge against flat, or else receiving the edge of the oncoming cut with the flat while moving into it. Otherwise, a cut might also be intercepted on the edge at the intersecting shoulder of the blade and the cross-guard while moving in against the attack. Intentionally blocking with the edge, despite its ubiquity in stunt fencing performances and widespread use in later fencing, was a sure way of unnecessarily damaging a sword and risking it breaking. See: The Myth of Edge Parrying in Medieval and Renaissance Swordplay.
29. All European fencing is based upon the idea of "parry and riposte" fighting.
False. The ideal of making a separate parrying action (or defensive block) prior to delivering a follow-up attack became predominant only in the fencing systems of the late 17th and early 18th centuries. Prior to this, the means of defending against cuts and thrusts consisted essentially of a single action that counter-attacked by displacing the oncoming blow with a strike while simultaneously hitting back. This element is common in the armed fighting arts of many cultures. Or else parrying was achieved by closing in to stifle an attack before it impacted by moving to encounter it against the hilt (where there was greater leverage) at the lower portion of the attacker's weapon (where there was less momentum). These elements are almost entirely absent from the later methods of fencing developed during the very different military environment and civilian self-defense conditions of the 18th century which relied almost exclusively on a "parry-riposte" method of defense. Other than this, Medieval and Renaissance swordsmen were taught to void or dodge attacks entirely while delivering their own strike to the opening created by the opponent's own attack. Many 15th and 16th century fencing teachers stressed the virtue of counterstriking rather parrying and even emphasized that offense was defense. In later fencing styles (chiefly based on the method of the smallsword) the parrying of cuts became a static action employing a rigid position using the edge (but still nearest the hilt), which was then followed by a separate attack from that position. This is the familiar edge-to-edge action seen in most stage-combat and saber fencing.
30. Medieval knightly combat was always chivalrous and courteous.
False. There were certainly customary protocols to virtually every aspect of Medieval (and Renaissance) society, and courtesy as an aspect of chivalry was a large part of the martial sport of knightly tournaments as well as the ritual combat of judicial duels. But personal armed combat at this time was a violent, brutal, and bloody affair with little room for niceties and false etiquette. While social norms have always influenced ritual elements of close combat among different social classes, such as within duels, the chivalric literature of the period largely reflected an idealized manner of courteous combat that was contradicted by the harsh reality of survival in violent situations. Fencing masters and authors on combat teachings or dueling codes made clear that a fighting man was free to use whatever worked within individual combat and that naive courtesy was foolish when your life was at stake. The historical record of battlefield fighting, judicial combats, streetfights, ambushes, sudden assaults, and duels firmly establishes this. While episodes of noticeable mercy, compassion, and fair-play are known, so too are ones of unscrupulous deceit, duplicity, and underhanded behavior. The pragmatic reality lies somewhere in between.
31. Double-edge swords are inferior to single-edge swords.
False. A sword was designed with existing technology as a tool to meet a desired function, that of doing harm to another or preventing harm to oneself. Both single and double-edged swords were produced across many cultures. Each has advantages and disadvantages and was the subject of almost continuous experiment and refinement as armors improved and the conditions of combat changed. Single-edged blades tended to allow for more powerful cuts and were more fitting on curved swords that slice or slash. Double-edged blades were well suited to stiffer tapering swords that permit better thrusting and allow for more versatile techniques (i.e., back edge cuts, half-swording, throwing, etc.). Renaissance fighting men employed numeoru stsyles of single edge swords, from single-edged warswords to falchions to messers, stortas, badelairs, braquemarts, back-swords, and the two-handed saberlike grossmesser.
32. Some swords had two edges so that when one was ruined the other could be used.
False. Since ancient times two-edged and single-edged swords have been designed and used, often within the same cultures and fighting communities. There are only two ways to produce a cutting sword; it either has a single edge or a double one. Two edges are a natural result of producing a flat straight blade that is ideal for thrusting and chopping at resistant materials. Although a blade with a single edge has a wider bevel that allows for a deeper cut, and has a stiffer back that permits greater stress; a double-edged sword does permit a greater range of techniques (you can cut both ways with it). While a fighter could conceivably rely on one edge more than another or switch should it become dull or heavily nicked, this was not its purpose (since either edge could just as quickly become damaged as easily in the same manner). But no historical evidence exists to support the assertion that a two-edge blade design was intentional because one edge was expected to become ruined. In fact, three out of five of the major cuts performed in Renaissance fencing are delivered with the back edge of the sword.
33. Medieval and Renaissance fighting men did not conduct any mock-combat weapon "sparring" in their training.
False. Modern research in historical European martial arts has revealed considerable evidence in Europe from the 12th to 17th centuries for several different forms of mock combat used as earnest self-defense training, battlefield rehearsal, ritual display, and sporting contest. From knightly tournaments to prize-playing contests to bouting a few veneys or assaults at arms and impromptu scrimmaging, the evidence for "free play" or "playing loose" as practice-fighting is substantial. This activity involved substantial contact, and not merely pulled blows or surface touches. Examination of the methods by which this kind of "sparring" was pursued (e.g., its equipment, its intent and purpose, its permissible techniques and safety considerations, and its risk of injury, etc.) is a main area of exploration in historical fencing studies. See: To Spar or Not to Spar.
34. European fighting systems never included any spiritual or ethical components.
False. It is uncommon to find Renaissance Martial Arts teachings that did not address ethical or spiritual matters. Not only do most of the source texts on Renaissance Martial Arts (as well as much literature of that age) contain direct references to what is and is not ethical behavior among fighting men, they also offer advice on the avoidance of fights and comment on when and where and under what conditions it is appropriate to use violent force. Masters of Defense did not teach fighting skills in a cultural vacuum but drew upon classical learning, Christian morality, chivalric traditions, and humanist ideas. These elements formed much of the later ideal of what it means in Western civilization to be an officer and a gentleman.
35. Flex-testing a sword is a good way to demonstrate the quality of its blade.
False. The mistake of flex-testing sword blades today (i.e., giving it a slow bend by hand then holding it there) is something that has become quite common as a result of misleading information among reproduction sword manufacturers and their commercial distributors. Sword enthusiasts today frequently fall victim to this misconception that their swords must have a tremendous flex to them that can be repeatedly demonstrated, not realizing that not only is this not a true sign of a well-made fighting sword but that each time they do this they damage the structure of the blade. Each time the test is performed the blade is weakened as bending begins to exceed the steel's stress limits. Over time such damage will eventually cause the blade to fail under stress. Repeated slow flexing will also prevent the blade from returning true. Flex testing is supposedly a way of showing good resilience and blade quality but the action is misleading and all but useless for demonstrating a sword's sturdiness for combat. Slow flexing is a gradual application of force to a blade that it will never really see in actual use. Real swords need to be quite rigid yet still be flexible under stress. This is a matter of having good resilience, not "whippiness" or a "noodly" flexibility. Many modern replica swords cannot be test-flexed at all because they are of inferior temper or poor metallurgical quality and will either snap or stay bent. Ironically, many kinds of actual historical specimens would also not pass such a test either, as their blades were very often exceptionally rigid. (In fact, this is how the sword of a dishonored man or surrendered leader would be broken, by straining it in a bend so that it snapped). Different portions of a blade typically will not have the same degrees of flexibility due to cross-sectional differences. Thus, a slow test bending by hand at one portion of the blade does not equate to a fast flexing under force at other portions as would occur when a sword stabs strongly at a resistant target or is struck forcibly against its flat at the middle or lower near the hilt.
Historically, proving a blade was accomplished in various ways. An early method was by making a heavy blow on a block of wood or iron, first with the flat, then with the edge, and lastly with the back followed by briefly bending the blade flat-wise against it. The operation concluded by driving the point through a thin iron plate, which later became known as the "Toledo test". Several 17th and 18th century French fencing masters wrote how one should never force a bend in a blade as it may cause the blade to be weakened and break upon use. They stated some tests of thrusting swords involved a quick thrust at a firm target to note how the weapon sprung back to proper straightness. In the 19th century military sword tests could include smashing one down on a hard surface or sticking it in a block and bending until it broke. Different kinds of blades with different shapes and cross-sectional geometries will typically have gradual change in the degree of flexibility along their length. Most cutting blades will actually reflex spring at the striking portion when impacting with a strong blow (this all but invisible elastic recovery can be witnessed in slow motion videos of test-cutting against substantial materials but it is near impossible to display or check through slow bending a blade by hand). This is why impact testing for cutting blades is a true test of quality, not mere flexing. Impact strength has little to do with flexibility. As well, slender thrusting blade shapes with more "corners" or sides will have much less flexibility than would be the case if they had flatter or rounded cross-sections.
Strangely, the very defect of too much flexibility in a blade is frequently assumed as the measure of a good sword. This error likely comes from confusing flexibility in a blade with the plastic elasticity of its steel; elasticity is necessary, but flexibility is useless and always detrimental in a fighting blade. Although quick and effective parrying demands a certain amount of elasticity in a fighting blade, whether for cutting or thrusting it is impossible to have one be too stiff. There is no possible use of a sword in cutting, thrusting, or guarding, in which great flexibility would be advantageous. Sport fencing blades are of course extremely flexible by nature in order to prevent injuries that would result if genuine stiff weapons were used in the same manner. Historical fighting weapons intended to do real harm were not designed this way.
36. Japanese katanas wielded by samurai cut through European military swords in martial encounters.
False. No documentable verifiable evidence has come to light of any incidents where personal combats between Renaissance-era European swordsmen and feudal Japanese samurai resulted in a sword being cut or broken. Interestingly, a Dutch account from the year 1669 does describe a demonstration occurring at a temple in Japan wherein a European smallsword was set up stationary and cut in two. However, putting the account into context, it is important to know these light blades were very narrow and slender civilian weapons designed for unarmed dueling, not military blades for cutting, and were also well-known to snap during fights if grabbed and forcefully strained by a bare hand. Further, an account from Scotland in the year 1689 similarly described how pikes and smallswords were cut clean through by Scottish broadswords as well as how pikes, smallswords, and muskets had been snapped by blows from single-handed claymores. So, the cutting of a smallsword is no particular feat. No reliable evidence exists for any real-life incident wherein any historical Japanese fighting sword cut through any historical European fighting sword during combat. (And no, evidence is not defined either by what appears in Anime or by anecdotal claims that a friend of a friend's cousin's brother's sister-in-law's uncle knew a guy whose old master's master once heard a story.)
37. Japanese katanas are the ultimate swords in the universe because they routinely cut completely through Volkswagens and employ secret powers of "Ki".
False. ...And if you believe otherwise, nothing will likely convince you.
38. Historical European martial arts were really copied from Asian martial traditions.
False. They were actually stolen from Amazonian Martian cyborgs who are in fact the true ancestors of ancient Africans via Atlantis. ...But seriously, refer to entries 1, 2, and 3 above.
39. A really well made sword should never break.
False. Sometimes swords broke. This is a historical a fact for all swords in all cultures through history. They were typically well made and resilient (they had to be) but they were not indestructible. They were perishable tools with limited working lifetimes. Depending on how much use and abuse they were put through under particular conditions that period could vary widely. Like any human hand made object they might also sometimes have flaws that rendered them less durable.
40. "Real" Masters of Arms still exist
When someone today is accredited as a "master of arms" by a fencing federation this exclusively means that they are recognized by that organization as having earned expertise only in teaching the modern form of sport fencing. The title only holds relevance for the modern competitive collegiate/Olympic fencing styles using the tools of epee, foil, and sabre. It has nothing whatsoever to do with knowledge or mastery of a historical martial art of self-defense using military weaponry of even the 19th century, let alone from any European fighting arts of the pre-Baroque era. No modern school of fencing anywhere retained connections back to Medieval and Renaissance close-combat combat skills nor preserved any authentic instructional methods of their techniques.
The whole process of being taught by a teacher who comes from a "line" of teachers is meaningless unless there is some preserved core skill-set of collected knowledge that was retained unchanged and transmitted unbroken from instructor to instructor along the way. For the martial arts of the Renaissance, we know this was not the case. Virtually nothing survived the generations to be retained and passed on by later fencing masters using wholly different tools and methods for far narrower conditions of self-defense. It is one thing today to construct a new curriculum of martial skills based on interpretation of the historical methods within the surviving source literature, and then call yourself a "master" of that new reconstructed effort. But it's something else entirely to claim some unique authority in this subject by virtue of some supposed "special learning" acquired from some dead modern fencing instructor who allegedly preserved "secret knowledge" of lost arts. In the first case it is called renewal and revival; in the second it's simply called fraud. What makes such claims all the more pathetic is when self-proclaimed experts today exhibit comparatively mediocre fighting skills.
It can also be surmised that as 19th and early 20th century arms historians and fencing writers examined wrote extensively on how swords and swordsmanship from past eras was supposedly crude and clumsy, had any fencing master at the time known differently, they would surely have spoken up to correct their mistaken peers. Had any of them had a better conception of the true nature of Medieval and Renaissance fighting arts and close-combat skills, they would have exposed the mistakes and myths then being perpetuated, if not to reveal their superior knowledge then simply to give proper credit to their own heritage. That none are documented as having stepped forward to do so, but instead recorded as largely regurgitating the same general consensus errors, tells us great deal about how much had been forgotten and lost. This fact alone exposes the lie of there having been modern era fencing masters still wise to the lost methods of earlier European martial arts. They could not provide wisdom they did not possess. Modern fencing masters and “masters of arms” long ago ceased being Masters of Defence expert in martial arts, and had since become mere sport coaches.
47. The use of axes, maces, and warhammers in close-combat was unique.
False. It is often asked why there is apparently no surviving instructional literature within Medieval or Renaissance fighting disciplines for employing common weapons such as maces, axes, and warhammer? The likely answer is that there simply was no need for it. First, these weapons were not nearly as prevalent during the later Middle Ages and Renaissance eras as popular media (and Victorian sources) have tended to give us the impression they were. Second, the observation can be made that such concussion weapons (often used against heavier armors or simply employed by secondary troops) do not require particular skills or specialized technique. As has been suggested, their use is really a matter of aiming, swinging hard, then repeating as necessary. The most probable reason we can conjecture then for why they are noticeably absent from the instructional fighting literature is that clubs, maces, warhammers, axes, are in every way superseded by proper study of the sword along with the polaxe, the spear/staff, and the dagger. After all, while there was long recognized such things as swordsmanship and swordsmen we do not read of “axemanship” or “mace-men.”
In summation, there is a world of difference between the earnest study of a diverse martial art of armed and unarmed historical fighting skills and the practice of fencing for ritual honor combats, duelling sports, or entertainment display. While the above list presents some of the major myths pervading the subject of historical European martial arts they are far from the only ones. Myths about sword construction and sword evolution alone would fill several articles. We might just as well include many others and new myths and misconceptions are developing even today. That many of these myths are mutually contradicting is itself evidence of the extent of misinformation found largely in film, television, anime, video and board games, historical reenactment, sport fencing, and stunt fighting.
Robust debate and vigorous dissension are certainly not to be shunned in discourse on a subject as varied and open to investigation as this. But because inaccurate and erroneous assumptions are so widespread it is fortunate there are now assets that can be devoted full time toward compiling credible and verifiable information from diverse areas. Though exploration of this craft is still in its infancy, the old orthodox view of fencing history, as well as the general mistakes popularly held about swords, is finally beginning to fade in the light of new and better information.
A fencer learns the basic actions of fighting by exercising in repetitive movements and partnered routines of attack and counter-attack. But skill in the art is not acquired just by doing drills and exercises. The more effective and better-prepared fighter will be the one whose practice comes to reflect the energy and tempo of real close-combat.
91
Post by: Hordini
I love you.
Strictly in the bromantic sense of course. But that's a great article.
5394
Post by: reds8n
It's not quite as time swallowing as Cracked but you can lose yourself quite easily.
The referenced 2 handed sword article : http://www.thearma.org/essays/2HGS.html
I quite enjoyed as well. Some of them look almost too thin or light to have been of use.
|
|
