Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Yes, exactly Bill! That's just what I said to students last night: "much of the stuff on Talhoffer was sooo 1998".

As you say, not only is there evidence of man/woman duels (Galas has records of two, I believe), we see variants of them in other manuscripts; Kal clearly shows a different version of the same idea.

But, again, it all needs to be viewed in the right perspective: the fact that anyone even cared to do a show like this is a victory.

Cheers,

Christian
i have to say I only managed a few minutes before I had to stop watching.

The 'archer-versus-siege-bell' segment ruined it for me. Loades comment: "He's shooting a very VERY powerful bow - 80lb!" Heavy bow? Really? My wife shoots an 80lb bow! A very heavy bow is 160lb or more. Using such a bow demonstrates about as much as Bettany Hughes crushing an old sheep's skull with a rock in a bag.

It's frustrating when they use (what appeared to be) a re-enactor with incorrect equipment (a bamboo-backed laminate bow? In the 15th century?) for these demonstrations when there are many skilled heavy bow archers that could have added some legitimacy to their experiments (unscientific though they were).

And personally, I don't care for Mike Loades - or John Clement's - style of delivery: that overly-emphasised, aggressive, punctuated style. However knowledgeable, to me they come across as somewhat over-excitable loonies, rather than professional, skilled martial artists. I would prefer a more measured style.
I was on to the same thing about the bow in another forum.

Aaron though is really a good ambassador for the HEMA. In great condition and skillfull.
Roger Hooper wrote:
Being inside that early proto-tank would be most unpleasant. - really bad for your hearing and respiratory system.


The way they portrayed the 'tank' was ridiculous, it wouldn't have had such heavy, crude iron plates, or such larg guns probably just hand-culverins or hook-guns. The one in Talhoffer is really just a slightly ambitious variation on a Hussite War Wagon, like this one from a Hausbuch from 1480:.

[ Linked Image ]

Various sorts of gun-wagons like that were in wide use in the 15th Century

I think it was good in the sense that it introduced Talhoffer to the public ... albiet a narrow public since NG channel isn't broadcast on most basic cable packagaes. It was good in that it showed Aaron running and jumping and rolling in plate armor which helps debunk some myths, and fighting in an agile manner. His flourysh was also very good.

The male female judicial combat was pretty well simulated.

Most of the experimental archeology was fairly unconvincing. Why did they have men pumping the bellows by hand as if the didn't have machines in 1459...? Everything seemed kind of rushed.

The computer graphics was similarly uneven. The 'knights' (everyone in armor was automatically a knight, as was Talhoffer supposedly) fighting with pollaxes were particularly bad.

I was disappointed to see Clements stunning AP for a variety of reasons.

All in all, while the scenes in the armor and the little bit of fencing and free play were good, the overall tone was exactly that type of "UFO prophecies of the concubines of the SS" History Cchannel freakshow tone, I think the whole thing will be dismissed by most audiences as just more quirky pseudo history.

So I guess I'm in the 'glass half empty' camp, though not 100%.

J
well I really didn't think it was too bad at all . In fact I quite enjoyed it .
The reality is that television that is about anything one cares about is going to fall short in one way or another if you have any expertise at all.
I think that the fact that talhoffer is deemed interesting enough for mass distribution is in its self a +.
I made same comments to my companions about the "powerfull " bow but relatively speaking that is about what I can successfully pull...........
I think our world is expanding to new people and that is a good thing .
I think we should start a campaign across armourdom and the hemasphere for everyone to go onto the NatGeo website and request more programming like this. If they really knew how much bigger and interesting the story really was, they would have to produce a major film. :idea:

More programming like this please :!:
Hello All

I agree with Jean on the war wagon...

those large cannons were just over the freaking top. I have " read" the plate in question as being hand gonnes as that's what they have illustrated in the plate , I have no friggen clue how hand gonnes on a tiller became a battery of breach loading field pieces... :wtf:

There were many statements that drove me nuts, chain mail, heavy war bow, often husband and wife ( :wtf: )... at least if you read JC's blog you'll understand why some of it happened. (like the phase "chain mail").

From his blog it sounds like they filmed lots of sword & messer stuff that never made it out of the cutting room.

Cheers,

David
Jean Henri Chandler wrote:
The way they portrayed the 'tank' was ridiculous, it wouldn't have had such heavy, crude iron plates, or such larg guns probably just hand-culverins or hook-guns. The one in Talhoffer is really just a slightly ambitious variation on a Hussite War Wagon, like this one from a Hausbuch from 1480:.


Agreed! The other thing that bothered me a lot about this bit was that Mike Loades showed the cannon as being the heavy iron hoop construction, when even a quick look at the actual picture makes the guns look a lot more like early 14th-century handguns, where a single-fire iron bit was stuck out on the end of a wooden rod. While much harder to reload in action, these would have been much lighter and made the whole thing less of a behemoth.

As for the crab things, they were simply preposterous.

Quote:
I was disappointed to see Clements stunning AP for a variety of reasons.


Right. Christian hit the nail on the head, there: This is clearly meant to show a judicial combat between two equally armored men, and the fact that Clements doesn't understand that ruined the entire bit. Moreover, I was disappointed to see Clements swing his sword flat when he did a mordschlag; that's a good way to break a blade.

There were many other irritants, too. Why can TV shows get every detail of a wwii show perfect down to the last degree, but fail utterly when it comes to medieval history?

I was thrilled to see a fechtbuch on a mainstream TV show, but ultimately sickened by the way it was handled. What's the point of telling people about a subject only to feed them misinformation?
Jean Henri Chandler wrote:
..."UFO prophecies of the concubines of the SS"...


"Coming up next week on the Hitler-Er-History Channel..."

It may well be a case of two steps forward, one step back.
Here in Aus I watch SBS for most of this kind of thing, but perhaps better.
I bet if they got the BBC or a European country to do it they'd pull it off a tad better, but at least everyone who was in it or provided for it did the best with the material and direction they had. So kudos to everyone!
Hugh Knight wrote:
The other thing that bothered me a lot about this bit was that Mike Loades showed the cannon as being the heavy iron hoop construction, when even a quick look at the actual picture makes the guns look a lot more like early 14th-century handguns, where a single-fire iron bit was stuck out on the end of a wooden rod. While much harder to reload in action, these would have been much lighter and made the whole thing less of a behemoth.


I agree. In one shot, you see Mike Loades talking about how detailed the artwork is and how you can see the touch holes on the 'cannons'. Then there's a huge closeup of the actual manuscript, clearly showing handgonne barrels. Then, suddenly, the next scene shows Mike out in the field with this massive breach loading medieval cannon! I was like ... :wtf:


Hugh Knight wrote:

Moreover, I was disappointed to see Clements swing his sword flat when he did a mordschlag; that's a good way to break a blade.


This part made me cringe. If only this thread was a debate about edge vs flat, and not a discussion about a television show, I would have been all over that.
James Head wrote:
This part made me cringe. If only this thread was a debate about edge vs flat, and not a discussion about a television show, I would have been all over that.


Indeed, this thread is not about that issue, nor should it become about that issue. There are other threads, forums, etc. in which to have that debate.
Thanks for the heads up. I'll have to catch this. "Ancient Sex Prophecies of Hitler's Bodyguards" made me laugh.

In the typical semi-historical debates you get into on places like YouTube there's always a guy who tells you to "Go watch the History channel". You can never tell whether its a serious recommendation or if he's insulting you by naming you as a viewer, so in a way, it's an effective finishing move.

Either way Clements gets a lot of criticism for pretty much everything he does; in this case if there are quirky historical accuracies I'd more likely attribute them to intentional desire by the shows producers. There are faults in his early attempts to translate fighting manuscripts but if there are really 15th century knights armed in bamboo I'll have to point the finger elsewhere...
I have to say this though to be fair, John Clements and Aarons part in this were really the best parts, I think overall two steps forward one step back is a fair analysis, most of the problems were from National Geographic channel production team I think. I have a lot of disagreements with John but most of what he presented was fairly accurate. Did the 1459 portray an unarmored and an armoured guy fighting? Maybe, maybe not, but certainly it was possible for an unarmored man to have to fight an armored man and if you did (and couldn't run away) a mortschlag is probably one of your best bets. The free-play with him and Aaron was useful because it showed good HEMA techniques and demonstrated the high level of agility one can have in a decent harness, in fact I think that is the first time I've ever seen someone on commercial TV fighting for an extended period in full harness doing actual KDF techniques. So that is a fairly big deal.

He put his own politics in a little ("Talhoffer was a KNIGHT!!!") but I think 90% of what he said and demonstrated was pretty accurate compared to what we know as a community (and lets face it, nobody is always right in this world, as mentioned upthread most of what all of us thought in 1998 was pretty far off the mark), whereas most of what the rest of the production presented (like the tank) were fairly ridiculous / not even in the ballpark.

I would really like to see more but I'm not sure National Geographic (or the History Channel) would be the best venue.

Actually did anyone here see the History Channel documentary, I think it was modern marvels ironically enough, which had John Clements and Paul Champagne? It's been a while since I saw it but I remember it being quite good, better done over all than this one.

J
Hello All,

If you take the time to read JC'c production blog , he covers why some of the "facts" and sword movements are "wrong".

I gigged him on the phrase "chain mail", turns out the director demanded he use it after shooting that same shot with the correct term maille. The director preferred the Victorian/D&D name over the historical one.

The striking with the flat, there was a safety issue so they opted for a safer strike over the historical one.

Really, love him, hate him, best to read his blog for the rest of the story on the show.

Cheers,

David
Quote:
Actually did anyone here see the History Channel documentary, I think it was modern marvels ironically enough, which had John Clements and Paul Champagne? It's been a while since I saw it but I remember it being quite good, better done over all than this one.


This still repeats to this day and I watch it again when I catch it. A better program for manufacture thatn the brief swordsmanship clip. Some of the older PBS documentaries have been less compressed and perhaps a better venue for a more serious exploration and educational value. In a sense, the History Channel type presentations are very much like Wiki. A place to start but a lot of seasoning needed to venture further of both truths and false dead ends.

Cheers

GC
It was entertaining if problematic. Most of the problems, to me, seem to be those endemic problems to all History Channel/NatGeo/Discovery popular media "documentaries".

Like David Teague just said: Clement's blog clarifies a lot--like why the term "chainmail" was used, why they had to do certain things certain ways, where they had to cut corners.
Though he doesn't call it out directly in his blog, I wonder if him calling Tallhoffer a knight was really him, or what the director told him to say, like with the "chainmail"
(Although, to be fair, even though we all know "chainmail" is inaccurate and redundant, the general populace only knows it by that name and can get confused when you refer to it by just "mail").

I think similar production problems can be inferred for some of Mike Loads's portions. The guns on the battlewagon, for example. Loads might be perfectly aware they look like handgonnes, not cannon. It is possible his breech-loading gun segment was filmed days or weeks prior to the battlewagon scene, and he only had a vague idea the two scenes were related. Maybe not, maybe he developed that whole sequence himself.
But, from what I know of documentary fimmaking from experts in several fields who have been asked to take part, I'd be more likely to blame the director/producer first for much of the inaccuracies and weirdness.

On the "crayfish":
IT seems to be the consensus view here that as presented, these were pretty ridiculous. But if the film got it wrong... they what ARE they? Since it is difficult to conduct tone through this medium, let me clarify: I think there silly, too, but would like to hear other peoples ideas on what there "crayfish" are, how they were constructed, and how they might have been used.
Jean Henri Chandler wrote:
IDid the 1459 portray an unarmored and an armoured guy fighting? Maybe, maybe not, but certainly it was possible for an unarmored man to have to fight an armored man and if you did (and couldn't run away) a mortschlag is probably one of your best bets.


First, there's really no question on this issue: Judicial combats (which this is *clearly* shown to be with the banners and procession into the lists and the chairs and biers, etc.) were models of scrupulous fairness. Everything about them was designed to be equal, from the nature of the armor to the length of the weapons. Second, even if that were not the case, then the armored man would have fought differently, ignoring most of the unarmored man's attacks and simply cutting him down; he wouldn't bother with halfsword techniques at super-close range. So either way the interpretation is incorrect, and either way a falsehood was given to the viewers: either they were wrong abut what the book showed or they were wrong about what they showed. Nor was it, strictly speaking, free play, since the armored man had to be very, very careful not to hit Clements rather than just blasting him as he should have.

Incidentally (and not to divert the thread), but I disagree about the Mordshlag being your best bet in this situation: You wouldn't stand there toe-to-toe with an armored man-at-arms, you'd let him attack so you could bind and then step in to *grapple*. That cancels his protection advantage almost completely and plays to an unarmored man's advantages. On the other hand, that's just speculation since it's a subect not covered by the Fechtbücher! And that's the real point here.
I'd say the Mordshlag segment wasn't totally worthless.

Sure, the intent of the fechtbuch isn't to show an armored-vs-unarmored judicial fight, and for recreating the art we shouldn't interpret it that way, BUT the illustration does show one guy in harness and one guy not in harness--what it is meant to show is beside the point. Sure, in a judicial duel such a matchup would be extremely unlikely, but such a matchup was not impossible and could very likely be run into outside of judicial combat. In fact, the show explicitly stated as such.

If anything, the armored-vs-unarmored segment did serve to dispel some commonly-held misconceptions about such a matchup, such as that the unarmored man would be significantly faster or more maneuverable than the guy in harness.
Eric Allen wrote:
If anything, the armored-vs-unarmored segment did serve to dispel some commonly-held misconceptions about such a matchup, such as that the unarmored man would be significantly faster or more maneuverable than the guy in harness.


And reinforced another one, that an armored man doesn't have that big of an advantage against an unarmored man. I call this the "Robin Hood Misconception." You see it in movies all the time, where the bad guys are in excellent armor, but the right-thinking peasants in dirty tunics take them out easily because their hearts are pure. Any way you look at it, this was a total failure.
I came away with a quite opposite impression from that segment.
I thought they did a good job showing how a man in armor was nigh-on invulnerable to most threats, then showing how he was not outclassed in mobility. They did show he wasn't invincible, but we knew that anyway.
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Page 3 of 5

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum




All contents © Copyright 2003-2006 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum