| Nicholas Zeman wrote: |
| Hugh, I will look through my copy of The Last Duel tonight, I seem to specifically recall that mention of the shortened axes for horseback but of course it could be my memory playing tricks on me. Even if I can locate a mention, it might just be the author's misunderstanding of something. I agree with you that the author's understanding of arms, armor, and combat during the 14th century was shallow at best, I also found myself raising an eyebrow or two at some of the statements about the actual duel (like the "heavy" armor, the visor lock, etc...). I did find the book highly dramatic and entertaining, as well as fair-minded and pragmatic about the events and legal case surrounding the duel. |
Hi Nicholas,
I, too, found the book enjoyable; Jager really tried to put a human face on an historical event--something all too rare. But no book on an historical subject that lacks footnotes and documenation can ever really be taken seriously; the casual reader can ignore them, but the more serious reader must be able to check the author's claims else the book is ultimately fluff.
As for his understanding of armor and combat, that's endemic throughout the professional history community. They ridicule anyone who focuses on anything other than "big picture trends" and scornfully refer to those who focus on the arms and equipment of war as "tank spotters" (from the WWII enthusiasts who spend a lot of time studying tanks). Unfortunately, contrary to the modern peacenik notion that "violence never solves anything", it turns out that in reality, almost nothing of real worth has ever been solved without violence or the threat of violence, so it behooves historians to understand the tools of war and their use. A pity many do not (although there are excellent exceptions, such as professor Kelly DeVries).
Attachment: 25.71 KB