Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

Jim McDougall · 2nd November 2018, 06:18 PM

I think that while philosophical debate is often in degree entertaining as it is largely often speculative in use of analogy and comparative circumstance, in the analysis of weaponry used in earlier times we must realize the boundaries that exist in reality.

Using artwork, or even photography (in the instances described here earlier) as supportive evidence is only effective in degree, and accordingly only provides a degree of plausibility.

For example, the famed painting of the charge of the Royal Scots Greys at Waterloo by Lady Butler in the 1880s ("Scotland Forever") is only mildly accurate. It shows the troopers charging at speed almost wildly, with Highland infantrymen clinging to the stirrups of the cavalrymen charging into the French.
The truth was that the Scots Greys were not charging in this manner, but were at the trot, moving through sodden, muddy earth and moving through retreating Highlanders on thoroughly blown horses. The Highlanders were not clinging to the stirrups, but trying to get out of the way. The Greys were never ordered to charge, only advance.....and the immortal outcome was from failure to regroup in the confusion and scattering of troopers as many of the officers had been killed. Most fatalities were from the deadly crossfire during the advance, then from French lancers picking off the scattered troopers one at a time.

There are many cases of art having the presumption of accuracy, but artists tend to embellish, especially when the actual work is often done years after the event .

As mentioned, photography, particularly early examples, was often staged and using props and even costumes. As with art, these were intended to elicit a certain theme or perspective. They cannot typically be viewed as completely accurate.....though in cases, plausible.

Obviously, before cameras, and absence of an artist on site.....the call for witnesses is another means for evidence. In dramatic and often traumatic events, people are not sitting there taking notes, they are trying to survive.
As any police investigator will tell you...various witnesses....equal possibility of variation on accounts.

Narratives and accounts are typically written or gathered after an event, often years, sometimes many, later. Memories become clouded, often tainted by other accounts that are shared later. Post recognition is in effect prompted by suggestion.

Obviously, this is a digression as we are discussing hypothetical situations, but since it that very tract, it seemed that this perspective might better define the ineffectuality of art, photos and 'witnesses' overall. Also, in considering these elements, there is no substitute for research, cross reference and corriborstion and as always, common sense in evaluation.

2nd November 2018, 06:18 PM	#94
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,747	I think that while philosophical debate is often in degree entertaining as it is largely often speculative in use of analogy and comparative circumstance, in the analysis of weaponry used in earlier times we must realize the boundaries that exist in reality. Using artwork, or even photography (in the instances described here earlier) as supportive evidence is only effective in degree, and accordingly only provides a degree of plausibility. For example, the famed painting of the charge of the Royal Scots Greys at Waterloo by Lady Butler in the 1880s ("Scotland Forever") is only mildly accurate. It shows the troopers charging at speed almost wildly, with Highland infantrymen clinging to the stirrups of the cavalrymen charging into the French. The truth was that the Scots Greys were not charging in this manner, but were at the trot, moving through sodden, muddy earth and moving through retreating Highlanders on thoroughly blown horses. The Highlanders were not clinging to the stirrups, but trying to get out of the way. The Greys were never ordered to charge, only advance.....and the immortal outcome was from failure to regroup in the confusion and scattering of troopers as many of the officers had been killed. Most fatalities were from the deadly crossfire during the advance, then from French lancers picking off the scattered troopers one at a time. There are many cases of art having the presumption of accuracy, but artists tend to embellish, especially when the actual work is often done years after the event . As mentioned, photography, particularly early examples, was often staged and using props and even costumes. As with art, these were intended to elicit a certain theme or perspective. They cannot typically be viewed as completely accurate.....though in cases, plausible. Obviously, before cameras, and absence of an artist on site.....the call for witnesses is another means for evidence. In dramatic and often traumatic events, people are not sitting there taking notes, they are trying to survive. As any police investigator will tell you...various witnesses....equal possibility of variation on accounts. Narratives and accounts are typically written or gathered after an event, often years, sometimes many, later. Memories become clouded, often tainted by other accounts that are shared later. Post recognition is in effect prompted by suggestion. Obviously, this is a digression as we are discussing hypothetical situations, but since it that very tract, it seemed that this perspective might better define the ineffectuality of art, photos and 'witnesses' overall. Also, in considering these elements, there is no substitute for research, cross reference and corriborstion and as always, common sense in evaluation.