09-11-2008, 11:00 PM
Have you ever wondered why there exists no useful investigation of a particular historical subject, a subject which would secure the author addressing it first eternal academic fame? Sometimes it, aarrgh, just springs into the eye. Three examples for histories which have yet to be written:
1. The history and diffusion of chain mail: It is so straightfoward a thing. Chain mail was invented by the Celts and adopted by the Romans. It began later to be used by the Parthians, and other Central Asian peoples, and by the 7th century we find evidence for that type of armour as far as Tang China. Its extreme versatilty is evidenced abundantly by the fact that it remained throughout most of Eurasia in use until the introduction of effective guns, both in sedentary and nomadic cultures, with otherwise totally different approaches to warfare. A total success story, and the pattern of West-East transmission through military conflict is evident. Yet, it never occurred to any scholar to write a few lines about the diffusion process, because they have not looked beyond the narrow confines of their subject.
2. The myth of the turtle boat: In Korea, it is part of the national cult to maintain that the first ironclad ships in history were the turtle boats, invented by a famous admiral during the Seven Year War with Japan (1592-1598). I think the stuff is even teached at school and repeated uncritically by some Western scholars.
Yet, even a quick look would shatter the myth: First, iron armour is neither mentioned in the extensive war diary of the supposed inventor, the admiral, himself, nor in the war history of his nephew, the main Korean source on the course of the war. The first pictorial 'evidence' appears only in 1795, but is weak, since the hexagonal structure on the ship roof, interpreted as iron-cladding, may in fact simply stem from the intention of the artist to depict the ship in the way of a turtle's armour - which is NOT evidence for iron armour, since the term "turtle ship" for that ship type is demonstrably much older than any claim to its iron-cladding.
Second, even if we assume that the ship had an iron-roofing, this must have been directed against the popular boarding tactics of the feared Japanese infantry, and not against shelling for which naturally armour at the sides of the ship hull is required (as 19th century iron-clads in fact featured).
Third, even if we disregard the two points above, the turtle ship still could not be qualified as the earliest iron-clad ship, since there are earlier examples in Western navigation, for example the Spanish Santa Anna of 1522. Thus, a simple, three-stage argumentation would blast a whole national myth, a myth which is teached all over a country and propagated with fervor in the internet.
Your subjects?
1. The history and diffusion of chain mail: It is so straightfoward a thing. Chain mail was invented by the Celts and adopted by the Romans. It began later to be used by the Parthians, and other Central Asian peoples, and by the 7th century we find evidence for that type of armour as far as Tang China. Its extreme versatilty is evidenced abundantly by the fact that it remained throughout most of Eurasia in use until the introduction of effective guns, both in sedentary and nomadic cultures, with otherwise totally different approaches to warfare. A total success story, and the pattern of West-East transmission through military conflict is evident. Yet, it never occurred to any scholar to write a few lines about the diffusion process, because they have not looked beyond the narrow confines of their subject.
2. The myth of the turtle boat: In Korea, it is part of the national cult to maintain that the first ironclad ships in history were the turtle boats, invented by a famous admiral during the Seven Year War with Japan (1592-1598). I think the stuff is even teached at school and repeated uncritically by some Western scholars.
Yet, even a quick look would shatter the myth: First, iron armour is neither mentioned in the extensive war diary of the supposed inventor, the admiral, himself, nor in the war history of his nephew, the main Korean source on the course of the war. The first pictorial 'evidence' appears only in 1795, but is weak, since the hexagonal structure on the ship roof, interpreted as iron-cladding, may in fact simply stem from the intention of the artist to depict the ship in the way of a turtle's armour - which is NOT evidence for iron armour, since the term "turtle ship" for that ship type is demonstrably much older than any claim to its iron-cladding.
Second, even if we assume that the ship had an iron-roofing, this must have been directed against the popular boarding tactics of the feared Japanese infantry, and not against shelling for which naturally armour at the sides of the ship hull is required (as 19th century iron-clads in fact featured).
Third, even if we disregard the two points above, the turtle ship still could not be qualified as the earliest iron-clad ship, since there are earlier examples in Western navigation, for example the Spanish Santa Anna of 1522. Thus, a simple, three-stage argumentation would blast a whole national myth, a myth which is teached all over a country and propagated with fervor in the internet.
Your subjects?
Stefan (Literary references to the discussed topics are always appreciated.)
