Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[konwulsja]

I want to share with you a blog I have recently stumbled upon. Mainly, because I think it might be relevant to some of you, but also as means of supporting the author, as its spreading only by a word of mouth.

More to the point, a few words about the blog itself from the author, Bret Devereaux himself.

"What I aim to present here are a historian’s thoughts (more on me and my interests below) on depictions of historical and quasi-historical societies and militaries in popular culture.  Mostly this has been prompted by my response to how pre-modern battles are generally presented, but I hope to expand beyond just battles and armor, to also talk about historical societies and economies.

The goal here is to do something more substantial than the bevy of internet nitpicks, sins-lists and the like.  We’re going to discuss a lot of flaws here, but also where a given scene, book, or game succeeds in embedding some real sense of historical reality into a moment.  Negativity for its own sake gets boring: we’re as much about the good as the bad here."

"A Word About What is Historical: We’re not going to just talk about popular depictions of purely historical events: historical fiction and even speculative fiction and fantasy are fair game.  Fantasy literature in particular is frequently based in a ‘sense’ of the Middle Ages – often deeply flawed – worth interrogating.  Also, I love the hell out of works of fantasy, both high and low, and there is no way you are making me leave them out.  Fight me."

About the author, with his own words.

"Who am I?  I am an actual, professional military historian.  In particular, I am a specialist in the Roman army of the Middle and Late Republic, though I tend to wander chronologically and geographically quite a bit.  My interests focus on many of the practical concerns of life and battle in the ancient world: the cost, manufacture and use of weapons and armor, the economics of subsistence farming, etc.  My most recent research focuses on the development and cost of military equipment in the Middle Roman Republic, but I also have a running project in the background on the economics of household subsistence in the Roman agricultural economy."

I'm currently binge-reading it, but I'd like to tease you with just a two topics I have found most fascinating.

Collections: Armor in Order, Part I

https://acoup.blog/2019/05/03/collections-armor-in-order-part-i/

"This topic is coming as two posts: in this first one, we’re going to construct an ‘order of armor’ – the priority list for what gets covered in what order.  In a second post, we’re going to apply that heuristic to some TV, movie and video game armors and see how they hold up."

Collections: The Siege of Gondor, Part I: Professionals Talk Logistics

https://acoup.blog/2019/05/10/collections-the-siege-of-gondor/

"This is the first part of a six-part, series I expect to roll out taking a historian’s look at the Siege of Gondor in Peter Jackson’s Return of the King.  We’re going to discuss how historically plausible the sequence of events is and, in the process, talk a fair bit about how pre-gunpowder siege warfare works."

Perhaps you will find it as interesting as I have. I'm happy to share!

[martinuzz]

You should have a look at this project, you'll probably like it too:

http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=94550.0

[konwulsja]

I've heard about it here and there, but never actually checked it out properly. I've just read the description in the thread and it seems amazing. I have downloaded it. Definitely up my alley.

Thank you for sharing!

[Yellow Pixel]

And thank you for sharing your discovery about the blog, konwulsja!

I'm actually thinking about writing a story happening in a fantasy universe, and it might prove very useful!

[andrea]

Been following it for a while. The guy just finished a series on Clothing, pretty interesting. In general when he describes things he focuses on the things you don't really see depicted often, so he can provide some rare perspective and insight about how ancient societies worked. For example, in the series on the battle of helms deep (read it, it is great) he also talks about the social bonds that underpin the cohesion of armies, and how that led to rohan's army holding and the saruman's army fleeing despite the latter's superiority of forces (at least in the book when there is no huge cavalry force. Movie's Eomer had enough heavy cavalry to smash the isengard army regardless of other things). It really helps appreciating the depth Tolkien put in his work, some of which carried in the movie as well despite Jackson not really understanding it or thinking about it. Not that I blame him for it (I blame him for the disservice done to Theoden, but that is another story), many things I wasn't aware of either till they were pointed out. Tolkien as a war veteran and scholar of medieval times of course had a better understanding of the realities of war than most of us.


Speaking of Tolkien and things learned from this blog, I learned how Saruman's campaign was  full of blunders at every level (the biggest of course being deciding to betray your allies to side with the dark lord and try to betray him too. But he did much wrong on the actual warcraft side too). Now, those blunders wouldn't raise an eyebrow in most works and could be chalked up to the author making some mistakes. However as Bret points out Theoden's campaign was as good as it could be with the resources he had, and later in the books the Witch King and Denethor (another one Jackson treated badly. what is up with him and not-Aragorn kings?) have some truly masterful action. What is up then? Well, the latter 3 are generals who have been fighting wars for decades or in one case millennia. While Saruman is a maia of Aule, master of all crafts and is prized for wisdom, scholarship and craft. Basically, he is pretty smart and hasn't led a picnic, much less a war. Turns out that perhaps being smart doesn't necessarily by itself compensate a total lack of experience in the subject matter. The only part where he shines, non coincidentally, is blowing up the deeping wall which ties directly to his actual expertise.
And that is something I believe is intentional and I completely missed upon reading, like probably many other, and that this blog taught me.


I rambled a lot but the gist is that it is a great read. Updates every friday.

[konwulsja]

I haven't read that one yet, but there's a similar comparison in a series about Battle of Gondor. He describes how Tolkien put a big emphasis on courage and morale of the troops of Free People, who despite superiority of the opponent hold their ground. How the shifts of battle changed depending on morale of both opposing armies. It was a battle between fear and terror against hope and virtue.

Whereas in the film it's more about a sheer advantage of brute force and war machinery. Trolls, mumakils, catapults, but also Rohirims cavalry and ultimately the army of undead. Still, Surons forces are not obliterated, as it's usually the case in modern productions. They fled.

"That focus on morale gets to a truth about warfare: the winner of a battle is not the one that kills the most, but the one who makes the enemy run away. And the winner of a war is not the side which kills the most, but the side which can break the will of the enemy to fight."

Author also notes that it's still relevant even in modern warfare, where an army with superior technological advantage struggles with an underarmed opponent who is highly motivated.

It's important to say, that Peter Jackson worked within constraints of a different medium and author does acknowledge that. Even more, he thinks very highly about the film. Still I definitely prefer Tolkiens vision of warfare.

[Loud Whispers]

I'm glad you dropped this here; this kind of historical pedantry and the wilful artistic abandonment of it are both joys of mine, which I appreciate either way. The only thing I cannot abide by is the depiction of all peasants subsisting on a diet of gruel and porridge. Not all were millet serfs, and it's slanderous infamy on the good name of porridge