Sunday, May 28, 2006

History Channel

I recently watched an anti-Christian video on how Christianity supposedly borrowed everything that distinguishes it from Judaism from pagan sun god worship. The author never made any significant references but did several times mention "all of this can be verified by looking in any encyclopedia". First of all, when a scholar sets out to do research he doesnt go to Britannica. He goes to original documents. Encyclopedias are written by biased people and especially in regards to Christianity, many of them have anti-Christian bias and would love nothing more than to prove Christianity is nothing more than a copy of other religions. This is just an example and Im not by any means claiming that Encyclopedia information is regularly incorrect. Just that you should keep in mind that just because you read something from an otherwise accepted source, doesnt mean it's infallibly true!

I was reminded of this issue when Doc Rampage posted on the topic of the inaccuracy of the History Channel.

Once I saw a special on a battle in the middle ages where the English were said to have defeated the French on account of their infamous longbow men. (I believe this was the history channel but it may have been another) At any rate, the show attempted to disprove the 'legend' that the archers were the key to the victory.

First item of evidence: a solitary well decorated spur found in the battlefield. They interviewed several medievil experts who confirmed "whoever owned this spur was extremely rich and would have had the best armor available" then the next expert said "the best armor available at the time would have been such and such" So they took that armor and applied "myth buster" like tests to it. First, could the arrow of a long bow pierce it? Result = No. So now they have ruled out the Long Bow theory. Next they wanted to see if maybe, the armor was so heavy and the conditions muddy because it had just rained and maybe they fell down & couldnt get up because of the mud.

So they dug down to the depth of dirt that would have been the top soil at the time and took it into a lab. Then they used a machine to spray water on it immitating rain. (It was sort of ridiculous to use a machine any way instead of a spray bottle or something) but the conclusion: this dirt turned to mud when wet. Wow. How much do these researches get paid?

The premises were totally bogus anyway! Just because you find one spur, that doesnt mean that every single soldier had one of those!!! Everyone knows that the majority of men in medievil armies were peasants.

At any rate, I don't care whether the English long bow men saved the day or not. I'm just pointing out poor & misleading research by the History Channel.


Dave Gudeman said...

Thanks for the link.

Also, don't forget that the armored knight was riding on a horse that wasn't as well-armored as the knight himself. Maybe we should start a web sight called Hstory Channel Busters.

TheGodFearinFiddler said...

Haha sounds good. We'd have a lot to talk about for sure.