Maggot

One of the biggest difficulties in researching anything about the Middle Ages is source material. Since most of us don’t have the benefit of having a bunch of dusty, vellum books laying around, we have to rely on translations that are often secondary or much further from the source than is practical. Worse there is a great body of Victorian writing on the Middle Ages that is frequently quoted in most coffee table history books, which are wildly inaccurate. Not only was there a lot of bad research in Victorian times, but there was such a slant towards having a love in with the Renaissance that a lot of the writing was done to minimize any possible contribution to civilization that might have occurred during the Middle Ages. Because someone in the Victorian period mislabeled a spiked mace with the name for a ball and chain mace variant, in many subsequent texts people incorrectly refer to a spiked mace as a morning star. The word Middle Ages was even mistranslated from the French and should read Middle Age, but I think we’re too far beyond correcting that error.

A lot of English source books on the Middle Ages, with some notable exceptions, tend to be overly focused on just how cool it was that the English won all those battles. The French focused on just how pretty their knights looked and how unfortunate it was that they lost all those battles. If you want really good nuts and bolts, technical works, for the most part it seems you have to rely on the Germans. Fortunately, there are a lot better books coming out these days. Unfortunately, there are also a lot of badly researched ones coming out at the same time.

__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking class.

glyn

[quote=Maggot;419970]Fortunately, there are a lot better books coming out these days. Unfortunately, there are also a lot of badly researched ones coming out at the same time.

So many men, so many opinions. How can the average person tell which to believe?

__________________
Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.

zraver

[quote=glyn;419988]On good way is to read books published by a university, peer reviewed and acclaimed, and written by someone with a doctorate in the field.

Maggot

If you’re looking for some really good books, I’d suggest looting a good university library. The community public libraries will have some good books, but because they link their funding directly to circulation they’re more interested in having a dozen copies of the latest bestseller than one good research book, and will toss out great research books to make room for crap. They also will be more likely to get a book because it is new, instead of whether or not it is good. These are a few decent books, some of them in my personal library, that I’d recommend for reading on the Middle Ages. Sadly, I cannot remember the titles and authors of all of them:

The Face of Battle, John Keegan (Battle of Agincourt chapter)

The Medieval Warhorse, by Ann Hyland

A History of Private Life: Revelations of the Medieval World, General Editors: Philippe Aries and Georges Duby.

Daily Life in Medieval Times, by Frances and Joseph Gies

Longbow, by Robert Hardy (the technical information in the appendix is the best part)

Anglo-Saxon Military Institutions, by C Warren Hollister

Saracen Archery, by Taybugha al-Baklamishi al-Yunani (I believe that this is the author’s name, it’s a pretty hard thing to find, as English translations of Middle Eastern archery manuals go).

The Crossbow: Mediavel and Modern, Military and Sporting,Its Construction, History & Management. With a Tratise on the Balista and Catapult of the Ancients. And an Appendix on the Catapult, Balista and the Turkish Bow, by Sir Ralph Payne-Gallway

Cathedral, Forge, and Waterwheel, by Joseph Gies.

If you can get a translation of Feats of Arms and Chivalry, by Christine de Pisan, I’d highly recommend it. Essentially, it’s the Art of War of the Medieval Period. It was considered a battle bible for commanders for over a hundred years after it was written.

glyn

[quote=zraver;420000]Well, that's one way, but not what I would choose. A doctorate is no guarantee for anything. I'll give you an example. The best series of books on the US 8th Air Force was not written by someone fitting your criteria but an English farmer (Freeman). The film that best describes the English psyche ( the Remains of the Day) is not the work of an Englishman but an Oriental. I tend to keep the works of strutting academics well away from me.

Maggot

[quote=glyn;420131]It's very true. A lot of bad history texts are written by people with doctorates in history and a lot of University teachers in history are bad teachers of it. Part of the problem is that you might have a doctorate that had little or nothing to do with what you're writing or teaching about. I had a Medieval History teacher that specialized in Medieval Law. Anything he learned about the military matters of the Middle Ages were by accident and he was very honest in having no interest in it. He actually had me give a brief presentation on it, because he knew many people were interested in that part of history. His knowledge about the societal matters of the Middle Ages were extensive though. I had another one teaching it with a huge bias towards the Renaissance; to the point where he would lower the date of the beginnings of the Renaissance to include whenever anything of merit happened in Medieval times, sometimes as early as the 1200's!

Ironduke

We have 6.2 million volumes at my university.

__________________
The Buck Stops Here