77 replies to this topic

[Sharn]

Something that quite naturally struck me out of nowhere(though I have mused on it before) is REH's use of plate armour in the hyborian age world. Conan as king wears basically field plate akin to High gothic armour of the later 15th century( complete with sallet...). For whatever reason this bothers me. Perhaps it creates in my mind too close of an association between the "modern" world and eons ancient "Hyboria". To me there is nothing "eldricht" or "ancient" about High Gothic armour. Bascinets from the 14th don't feel particularly ancient to me. Roman armour begins to, Greek hoplite armour on back to the Hallstatt warriors and bronze age weapons, armour....well that's ancient to me. Now, mind, I'm not saying that the Aquilonians couldn't make a Hyborian equivalent of field plate(maybe with some archaic adaptions) perhaps in someways better. I suppose it has to do more with nomenclature than the actual object as "sallet" brings to my mind a very particular family of helmets so there's a very specific image put in my mind. An image that doesn't jive well with my altered hyborian universe(or REH's ). So does the use of"casque", "burgonet", bascinet and so on...Does anyone else get this historical/ahistorical double vision with REH's Hyborian yarns????

[Ironhand]

Oddly enough, it doesn't bother me. Aquilonia and Nemedia represent Hyborian civilization at its highest. As a pretechnological civilization with a warrior class develops, it will eventually develop articuated plate armor that conforms to the human body. That being the case, it could hardly avoid ending up being constructed like European plate armor. It's like convergent evolution, always evolving toward the best possible armor in terms of least expense, best protection, and lightest weight. Differences are possible, ie, think of the Roman tunica lorica. Or think of the armor the Rohirrim wore in The Two Towers: not exactly like any style of Medieval plate armor, but not that different, either, because it still had to perform the same function. It had helmets, neck pieces, chest pieces, shoulder pieces, upper arm pieces, etc. Instead of generic english descriptive names such as I have used above, REH used the French technical terms, which, IMHO, gave it a "romantic" feel. Would it have been better to use English descriptive terms. In any case, Hyborians would still have had helmets, neck pieces, shoulder pieces, etc., because they still have to protect the same human body. After all, Hyborians were not aliens who needed antenna pieces, tentacle pieces, tail pieces, or greebl pieces.

[thomas64]

One could argue that it's unlikely that the Hyborians spoke English or French. Just view sallet, casque, etc. as the nearest equivalent to whatever word the Hyborians used for whatever the piece of armor is.

Seriously, the pirates in The Black Stranger and the buckskin-clad settlers in Beyond the Black River don't feel terribly ancient either. The Hyborian Age was kind of a time where all times meet. It is therefore hard to point at anything in particular as being clearly anachronistic.

Edited by thomas64, 01 September 2007 - 07:39 AM.

[Kortoso]

One could argue that it's unlikely that the Hyborians spoke English or French. Just view sallet, casque, etc. as the nearest equivalent to whatever word the Hyborians used for whatever the piece of armor is.

I am with you on this. Having read some early Europeans accounts of Japanese armor and weapons, I can see how a "saber" can actually be a katana, and a "halberd" can actually be a naginata. Sometimes tanto are called "daggers".

[Xaltotun]

I don't think it's an issue. When Conan is in a particular land, among a certain people it's not a glaring problem. When you step back and consider all the Hyborian nations at a glance, then it does indeed look peculiar. Each race is locked in its own unique ethnographic present, or cultural "high point."

[whisper mode]Personally, I think REH just liked showing off how a Texan could use "them high-falootin' fancy-like words" for weapons and armor.[/whisper mode]

[vetrebond]

One could argue that it's unlikely that the Hyborians spoke English or French. Just view sallet, casque, etc. as the nearest equivalent to whatever word the Hyborians used for whatever the piece of armor is.

I am with you on this. Having read some early Europeans accounts of Japanese armor and weapons, I can see how a "saber" can actually be a katana, and a "halberd" can actually be a naginata. Sometimes tanto are called "daggers".

Nodachi are also called "Long Swords", I've also heard Wakizashi as "dagger" or "knife".
The native americans called the colonists soldiers swords "Long Knives".

It could also be possible that the fill plate armor Conan wears is a very rare thing, so rare that only Kings wear it. More often than not, Conan is wear a chain mesh Hauberk. Chain mail is pretty advanced too.
I look at it this way, in Conan's time, men have a lot of contact with Demons, and one thing that Demons are known for, is teaching mankind how to make advanced weapons and armor. The best example of this would be the demon, Azazel(iblis in arabic). One of the things he was known for was teaching humans how to make modern weapons, he was also known for lusting after human women, but... legends of the fall always involve women, don't they ?

There is one thing that bothers me about the conan books though, and it's somthing writers SHOULD know. Often times, when Conan has to chase someone across great distances... he only takes one horse. While, If you have to travel great distances, it's better to take two, you ride one until it drops, or about drops, then change off, and you have a semi-fresh horse to continue riding. To me, something like this is anachromatic, because in those times, they would have thought to take more horses and switch out, while in modern times, we wouldn't.

[Jake]

Well, due to the fact that the hyborian world precedes our own history, it would be obvious for things to relate to our world today. Howards assumptions seems to be that they (hyborians) invented all this stuff (such as ornate armor and weapons) and its traditions carried on to "modern" times, though the origin of that advanced stuff was lost in the forgotten mists of the hyborian age.... or something like that

[Sharn]

I guess I have to disagree on most of what's been said. While I am no literary expert, I certainly know armor and swords as well as history. As I said above, a sallet is a sallet. They are not to be confused with other types of generic "helmets". Nor are "armets" or "burgonets/casque/morions" and other very specific terms for types of helmets of recent history. Using modern world, non-english descriptives adds no romanticism to a story line set in an era so far removed from modern history, it produces a paradox of anachronism. Likewise the pirate ansemble of Conan in The Black Stranger does the same. Tricorn hats? Please. Granted, I know these are fantasy tales and who's to say that ancient Hyborians didn't develop a liking for those types of headwear(however unlikely in a logical sense) in destroys continuity of a "believable" world. If one looks at the development of protective armor it is linear. Why for instance, did the Romans(who had a system very capable of doing so) not make full plate(they came very close during the Dacian Wars, but still fell short)? The made arm protection of plate laminations(as did the Parthians and Sarmatians), but never large pieces of plate. Full face helmets, greaves and so forth, but none with pivoting visors(at least that have been discovered(which is very doubtful that such will ever be). But no sallets, cuises, true vambraces, elbow and knee cops, and all of the other very specific armor pieces of the 15th and 16th centuries.

So, no, we can't go and change the terminology used by REH (at which times I subconciously substitute a genereic term as a replacement). Quite frankly, the historical and Museum intelligentsia really knew very little in a practical way about arms and armor more than a hundred years prior to there own respective time. So the information that REH was using was thorough but full of holes. I suppose as a result these terms were used loosely by him and it is more of a personal issue for me. Knowing Howards take on these things he might have changed his word usage upon the realization of how narrowly defining those words are and decided whether he really wanted Conan seen in that light. Then again maybe he wouldn't. Yet, he makes up words for weapons(when they are seemingly ethnically or regionally specific). Why not for armor? To difficult to do I suppose and get that point across. Frankly we'll never know. At times it's one of the many questions I'd have liked to ask him.

[Sharn]

One could argue that it's unlikely that the Hyborians spoke English or French. Just view sallet, casque, etc. as the nearest equivalent to whatever word the Hyborians used for whatever the piece of armor is.

I am with you on this. Having read some early Europeans accounts of Japanese armor and weapons, I can see how a "saber" can actually be a katana, and a "halberd" can actually be a naginata. Sometimes tanto are called "daggers".

But that's precisely what a katana is: a Japanese sabre, the Tachi even more so. Tanto are daggers or knives. These are very specific "Japanese" terms for them. Just as an Aikuchi is very much like a Tanto but with a truncated or non-existant tsuba(guard), but still a dagger. No-dachi a "greatsword" or "two handed sabre". What is so wrong with these generic adjective terms? Why doesn't REH use terms like 'breidox' for a big two handed battle axe? Or messer for knife? It seems incongruous to me. Just fancy French terms for armor(helmets especially)? It is an anachronism. To me these words for different types of helemts sprung up to define very different types, as where before the 14th century helmets were very limited in design.

It must be purely idiosynchratic. He (REH) liked them and made preferrance of their use perhaps not realizing that people almost a century later would be so steeped in ancient military esoterism that it would become a burden to read anything with a crirtcal reaction to it !!! Oh well, it by no means destroys the pleasure I get from rereading them over and over again.

[Jake]

the reason that our early civs (romans, persians, blah blah blah) didnt develop the advanced armor of the hyborians is obvious...that knowledge was destroyed in the cataclysm that shaped our world. But back then, they had it. Not saying it was exactly like our modern armor in any way, though. A "burganet" or a "pike" is a generic term for a type of weapon.... it could look like a hell of a lot of things. Howards whole focus seems to take history and expand it to fantastic heights, and give it an extravagance that could only belong in such an extremely ancient world.

[Kortoso]

And who knows what the actual Aquilonian/Nemedian/Cimmerian terms would have been?

[vetrebond]

the reason that our early civs (romans, persians, blah blah blah) didnt develop the advanced armor of the hyborians is obvious...that knowledge was destroyed in the cataclysm that shaped our world. But back then, they had it. Not saying it was exactly like our modern armor in any way, though. A "burganet" or a "pike" is a generic term for a type of weapon.... it could look like a hell of a lot of things. Howards whole focus seems to take history and expand it to fantastic heights, and give it an extravagance that could only belong in such an extremely ancient world.

Another good reasons armor has developed differently in say, ancient rome, greece, persia, blah blah blah, is the climate. Plate Armor is VERY hot, and in the middle eastern sun the human flesh inside such armor will resemble sausage in a few hours. That's why Chain and Leather armor was mostly worn by the middle eastern armies, they relied on their shields for most of their defense anyways.

Also what Sharn said rings true too. REH liked them, so he included them into his stories. I like certain names, weapons, and magics, and i often include them in my stories. I look at it this way. If the critic has to dig this deeply to find plot holes. Then I'll take that as a compliment
What i said about the horses wasnt just about REH, but a lot of authors of fanatasy dont have that. Also, i can justify it to myself saying "Conan would never run a beast-of-burden to it's death"

Edited by vetrebond, 03 September 2007 - 01:54 AM.

[Sharn]

the reason that our early civs (romans, persians, blah blah blah) didnt develop the advanced armor of the hyborians is obvious...that knowledge was destroyed in the cataclysm that shaped our world. But back then, they had it. Not saying it was exactly like our modern armor in any way, though. A "burganet" or a "pike" is a generic term for a type of weapon.... it could look like a hell of a lot of things. Howards whole focus seems to take history and expand it to fantastic heights, and give it an extravagance that could only belong in such an extremely ancient world.

No a burgonet is NOT a generic term that applies to all types of helmets. It is one specific type that shares the majority of the same features and only occurs historically from about 1540 on into the early 1600's. One would not confuse a Morion for a Burgonet, unless you didn't know the difference between the two to begin with, so brimmed or visored helm should suffice for those who don't. Also, lets NOT confuse fantasy prose work or speculative archaeology with substatiated historical referrences. The Roman's or any other ancient culture did not have these armors and weapons of the alter type because they just DIDN'T have them. The idea was not there. Nor had it been. Also, Parthian and Roman armor was really quite advanced. Yet the cogitative realization to make larger sheets of iron for larger pieces of armor had not crossed their minds(most likely because they didn't need to, what they had on was far and above better than those they fought). Even the Greeks came close to full armor, but in bronze. They had arm plate defenses...even the ancient Greek version of foot armor. During the late middle ages called a sabaton, but different as sabatons have multiple lames and the Greek version just one or two joints.

"Pike" however IS a generic term referring to a weapon(or a fish ) of such a length that it requires two hands to use effectively and is thus typically employed in massed formations(Makedonian phalanx, Swiss/Landsknecht pike blocks, Minnesota Northern Pike Phalanx etc.). Yet even so it is still specific and "long spear" would certainly not give the visual information needed to get acrossed the idea of the weapon or how it would be employed. That would be TOO generic.

Obviously noone is seeing my point on this...I'm not sure why .

Edited by Sharn, 03 September 2007 - 01:56 AM.

[vetrebond]

the reason that our early civs (romans, persians, blah blah blah) didnt develop the advanced armor of the hyborians is obvious...that knowledge was destroyed in the cataclysm that shaped our world. But back then, they had it. Not saying it was exactly like our modern armor in any way, though. A "burganet" or a "pike" is a generic term for a type of weapon.... it could look like a hell of a lot of things. Howards whole focus seems to take history and expand it to fantastic heights, and give it an extravagance that could only belong in such an extremely ancient world.

No a burgonet is NOT a generic term that applies to all types of helmets. It is one specific type that shares the majority of the same features and only occurs historically from about 1540 on into the early 1600's. One would not confuse a Morion for a Burgonet, unless you didn't know the difference between the two to begin with, so brimmed or visored helm should suffice for those who don't. Also, lets NOT confuse fantasy prose work or speculative archaeology with substatiated historical referrences. The Roman's or any other ancient culture did not have these armors and weapons of the alter type because they just DIDN'T have them. The idea was not there. Nor had it been. Also, Parthian and Roman armor was really quite advanced. Yet the cogitative realization to make larger sheets of iron for larger pieces of armor had not crossed their minds(most likely because they didn't need to, what they had on was far and above better than those they fought). Even the Greeks came close to full armor, but in bronze. They had arm plate defenses...even the ancient Greek version of foot armor. During the late middle ages called a sabaton, but different as sabatons have multiple lames and the Greek version just one or two joints.

"Pike" however IS a generic term referring to a weapon(or a fish ) of such a length that it requires two hands to use effectively and is thus typically employed in massed formations(Makedonian phalanx, Swiss/Landsknecht pike blocks, Minnesota Northern Pike Phalanx etc.). Yet even so it is still specific and "long spear" would certainly not give the visual information needed to get acrossed the idea of the weapon or how it would be employed. That would be TOO generic.

Obviously noone is seeing my point on this...I'm not sure why .

I get your point. REH saws these weapons and armor in his head when he wrote these. If an Author wouldn't write what he or she sees, then they arent following their Muse, are they ? In my opinion, having such a broad scope of weapons and armor makes fantasy stories like wat REH writes interesting. However.... and i the only person who wants to see what Conan can do with a Rapier ?

[Sharn]

the reason that our early civs (romans, persians, blah blah blah) didnt develop the advanced armor of the hyborians is obvious...that knowledge was destroyed in the cataclysm that shaped our world. But back then, they had it. Not saying it was exactly like our modern armor in any way, though. A "burganet" or a "pike" is a generic term for a type of weapon.... it could look like a hell of a lot of things. Howards whole focus seems to take history and expand it to fantastic heights, and give it an extravagance that could only belong in such an extremely ancient world.

Another good reasons armor has developed differently in say, ancient rome, greece, persia, blah blah blah, is the climate. Plate Armor is VERY hot, and in the middle eastern sun the human flesh inside such armor will resemble sausage in a few hours. That's why Chain and Leather armor was mostly worn by the middle eastern armies, they relied on their shields for most of their defense anyways.

Also what Sharn said rings true too. REH liked them, so he included them into his stories. I like certain names, weapons, and magics, and i often include them in my stories. I look at it this way. If the critic has to dig this deeply to find plot holes. Then I'll take that as a compliment
What i said about the horses wasnt just about REH, but a lot of authors of fanatasy dont have that. Also, i can justify it to myself saying "Conan would never run a beast-of-burden to it's death"

Actually there are many examples of "plate" armor from the Middle East as early as the 1200's. While not high gothic plate it certainly was all encompassing in protection and used large amounts of various plate defences as well as mail. The Italian pennisula is very hot in the summer yet the condotierri wore full plate in battle. As well, the Spanish used plate armor. So the idea of it being 'too hot' doesn't wash. What's a little sweat compared to 3 ft of steel in the guts. South eastern Europe gets incredibly warm and humid(which in many ways is worse) and plate armor was employed there as well.

The wearing of mail is by no means more comfortable in a hot climate as one must wear a supporting garment to make it really effective as a means of protection(essentailly a stuffed coat). Do you were a thigh length down coat in 80 degree weather? If you say no(which I'd imagine we'd all say 'no') there's a very good reason: It's stifling let alone fighting for your life in it with 15-25lbs of steel mesh hanging on your shoulders. So it was all 'hot' to fight in. Also the Romans fought in England in the same type of armor and that island wasn't known for it's tropical climb... The Greek answer was to essentially fight naked, but for helmet, breastplate, greaves and shield(later just helmet and shield and then back to the whole kit again). Of course they were fighting "nut to butt" in a Greek version of a scrum but using spears and small swords to leverage a win. My point: Air temp had little bearing on protective armor development, if at all.

I can't wait until PB takes a read of this.....

[Sharn]

However.... and i the only person who wants to see what Conan can do with a Rapier ?

Yes.

Edited by Sharn, 03 September 2007 - 02:23 AM.

[John Maddox Roberts]

It would be interesting to know what reference works Howard had available to him. The vast bulk of works on armor available in English date from the 50s onward. Howard may have run across these words in his reading without having a clear idea of what they meant except in the most generic sense. We do know that he was uncomfortable with creating new place-names and fell back on historical names or slight variants of them such as "Aquilonia" "Argos" "Corinthia" etc. Even his "Darfar" is in the news lately. He may have felt equally uncomfortable with creating names for armor components and simply used terms he had read without intending them to have their historical meaning.

[Sharn]

No, no, I guess I do understand the why(or possible whys) that REH used the terms he did...yet, oddly he did not go in for using various terms of French derivation for weapons. A sword is sword but a helmet is not? Or a dagger. He used poiniard in at least one story as I recall. It is confusing in the sense that(correct me if I'm wrong) that in telling a yarn your trying to develop a mental image for the reader? So when REH says Conan is wearing full plate and a sallet with plumes I can't help but have the image of a late 15th century knight in high gothic armor that is blackened with gilt highlights. Sorry! When he has gunderman wearing "casques" I think of front brimmed cheekplated helmets with a comb that is so much the "burgonet"(another helmet Conan wears). Oddly, REH also goes in for horned helmets(decidedly unhistorical in regards to battle helemts but certainly for votive helmets) in Conan, Bran Mak morn and other stories(Marchers of Valhalla...).

[Taranaich]

I think giving the Aquilonians "advanced" plate armour just makes sense within the context of the stories. The Hyborians who would become the Aquilonians, Nemedians and Argosseans overcame Acheron three thousand years before Conan's time. Since there's a rough 2,000 year gap between the beginning of classical antiquity and the first full suits of plate armour, it makes sense that plate of Conan's time would be pretty advanced, especially without the presence of firearms to negate it, and it would probably be more advanced and protective than even gothic plate.

Heck, one could argue that the Hyborians were backwards, considering it (presumably) three millenia what us Europeans did in two. I guess there must have been some vast conflicts in Aquilonia and Nemedia's history to impede their technological development, or perhaps they stuck to furs for the first few thousand years.

Something else I thought was of interest: I cannot for the life of me find the picture or link, but someone did a reconstruction of Achilles' armour based on Homer's descriptions, and it bore an uncanny resemblance to medival plate! It even had something resembling a gorget!

EDIT: found some examples, it's called the Dendra Panoply:


The original Dendra Panoply find


A reconstruction


A modern reconstruction

It isn't exactly full plate, but it does look much more heavy-duty than the linothorax or even muscled cuirasses of classical Greece.

Edited by Taranaich, 03 September 2007 - 03:41 AM.

[deuce]

I don't think it's an issue. When Conan is in a particular land, among a certain people it's not a glaring problem. When you step back and consider all the Hyborian nations at a glance, then it does indeed look peculiar. Each race is locked in its own unique ethnographic present, or cultural "high point."

Hey Xaltotun! Yeah, I'm with you. I've noted several times on other threads that Howard used a "greatest hits" approach. However, I think the "anachronistic" quality of the Hyborian Age is more apparent than real. In 1600AD, you had in Britain an "anachronistic" situation. Essentially "Iron Age" barbarians (Highlanders) in the n-w and one of the most advanced nations on earth (Elizabethan England) in the south. The same with the Sweden of Gustavus Adolphus. REH seems to have used Ophir, Koth and Corinthia as "historical buffer" states between the essentially "medieval" Hyborian nations and the "ancient" lands to the south and east.