Hard riding no saddles or stirrups

[Robert Vermaat]

You have to remember though, historians of the ancient and medieval period didn't look at history the way we do today. It was more about the telling of the story than listing what happened and what didn't. It's hard to quote ancient sources well because the truth is usually not always fully explained the way it actually happened. Historians embellish...alot. Back in those days history was passed down through writings but also oral tradition which was largely based on who could tell a better story. Sir Joe Bob may have killed 10 people in a battle in real life, however to those who liked him or revered him he killed 100. It's very difficult to seperate history: fact from fiction. There's probably a grain of truth in all of this, but for the most part nobility in ancient times had a lot to lose so it's highly unlikely you'd see dramatic suicide charges, it happened, but it wasn't an everyday occurence and somewhat of a rarity even if books and sources paint a different picture.

Hi Rob,

No doubt you are right about us looking at writing history differently from Romans and later historians.
However, do not make the mistake of throwing away the possible validity of every account with that attitude. Remember these tournaments were events that were witnessed by a lot of people, fans as well as enemies - the descriptions were not chivalric novels in which anything goes. Your suggestion that this was pure fantasy and braggery would not be in agreement with the reaction of the times, when lying like this would be severely frowned upon.

Also, if sources like this this tell us of violent affairs, then where do you base your opinion on that suicide charges were highly unlikely and a rarity 'even if books and sources paint a different picture'? This suggestion that 'today we know better than the sources' is a very dangerous and unscientific approach. I find it all too common in amateur books who have different ideas about the past and therefore use the émbellishment argument' to happily and easily 'reason away' the contemporary sources. Heck I've seen it done by archaeologists and historian too.

If a source tells us something that for some reason we don't accept at face value, it's our job to deduce why that source would do so, and find enough material to make that deduction stick. THAT is the modern approach to writing history!