Archeology vs Sources

[Easy E]

As I continued to dig into the world of Scythed Chariots, it raised all sorts of questions in my mind.  How much should we trust the "primary sources" written down and surviving if there is no Archeology or other findings to back them up?  Of course, there is more than just Scythed Chariots that fall into this category!

We know that "eyewitness" sources are not reliable.  This has been proven may times in the judicial systems of various nations.  Observers have bias, faulty memory, and other limitations.  Our Primary sources are typically even worse, as they are relaying information from other sources and we all know the limitations of a game of Telephone.  Finally, historical historians had a different reason to write history than a modern scholar, and even modern scholars are impacted by the bias of their times. 

Of course, other evidence is also limited.  Not everything survives to the current time.  There is a lot of stuff still missing and huge gaps.  We don't even know what everything we have found even is!  Therefore, archeology is also "unreliable" in that it is now a full picture.   

Therefore, as Wargamers in the ancient space, how much weight should we give to primary written sources when deciding what is "historical"?  What should we be using to balance our assumptions about Ancient warfare?  How should we be synthesizing our findings?  Or do we even care?   

[Cat]

Ancient sources that are relaying information from other [usually lost] sources are not primary sources.  They are merely very old secondary sources and not particularly reliable.  But if that's the best that's available, there you are.  If it's the only tether to history that you've got, either use it or ignore it and make up whatever you want.
 
Academics by now are quite used to flagging these sources as unreliable.
 
It's a general axiom of history that the further back in time you go, the less information we have.

[SJWi]

I don't ( and doubt anyone has/can have) a definitive answer but would normally apply a "pinch of salt" test to assess reasonableness, plus seeing if several sources corroborate each other. As regards the former we know that most historians dispel the claims of numbers or troops deployed, often about enemy numbers. (a) The writer if just trying to "big up" the scale of victory  but (b) are the numbers logical given the populations and logistics involved to feed such armies.  People can also be suspicious when you find non-military writers describing in detail equipment and tactics, so "know your author" is also a decent test.   

[Daeothar]

What Cat and SJWi said.

Also; when using written sources, always keep in mind the background of the writer (or copier). It was (and probablty still is) quite common for authors to colour their writings with whatever agenda they're pushing.

For instance: one side in a war, the victors, will often exaggerate the number od enemies they faced. Instead of 10,000 troops, they won a decisive victory over 25,000 troops. Or so they write...

Whenever possible, find as many sources as possible and before ascribing any credibility to them, check their alignment, political agenda, religion, etc. And then compare their writings with, ideally, texts from the other side, and then from a neutral source. But every time, try to get an understanding of the reasons behind why they wrote what they wrote.

So:

"They had scythes the size of men on the sides of their repulsive chariots, which were drawn by hellish steeds. And with them they cut down our valiant defenders left and right. Then their monstrous constructs broke through and mangled our good and brave lord, who stood, but was slain by those vile blades."

vs:

"Their lines parted before our chariots like grass before a storm. Many broke and ran at the sight of our glorious charge. On and on we drove, through the thick ranks of the enemy running left and right, till we chanced upon their king. And as the cretinous monarch turned to flee, he was trampled by the horses of our leading chariot. And there was much rejoicing"

Both writings describe the same battle, but it's obvious who wrote what. And by understanding this, we can hopefully extrapolate a picture that is more true to the facts than either account. Even better when this is backed up by physical, archaeological evidence of course.

Finally, the age old adage: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence; archaeology has only uncovered a tiny fraction of a percent of what is out there in the ground, waiting to be found. So until the day we have uncovered everything there is to find, written sources are often the only thing we have to go on...

[Waffles_vs_Tacos]

The romans likely produced millions of scutum shields during the time they existed.

We have found 1 intact, and pieces of a few dozen more.

There were not likely nearly as many scythed chariots.

The fact that they are missing from the archeological record does not seem crazy to me, for many things, including most wooden things, the chances of being preserved is fairly low.

[Dr. Zombie]

What everyone else has said.

Plus. Wargaming is not that serious business after all. It is not supposed to be a perfect simulation of ancient battles, but more a retelling of a story and also a bit of fun. So in my book 'The Rule Of Cool' will always outweigh both archaeological and written sources.

[Daeothar]

The romans likely produced millions of scutum shields during the time they existed.

We have found 1 intact, and pieces of a few dozen more.

There were not likely nearly as many scythed chariots.

The fact that they are missing from the archeological record does not seem crazy to me, for many things, including most wooden things, the chances of being preserved is fairly low.

That, and the fact that metals were rather rare and valuable. A lot of metal objects, when they were at the end of their useful life, were molten down and used again. So a broken off scythe lying in the middle of a battlefield would very likely have been scavenged and molten down or repurposed, leaving nothing for us to find...

[carlos marighela]

Never trust anything ancient that hasn't been prodded by the trowel of Phil Harding. Trust it even less if the geophysics don't bizarrely contradict the findings of the rest of the team.

[jon_1066]

There is no definitive truth we can get to, so much of the ancient world is unknown yet we have very detailed info about other parts.   I think for wargaming it is OK to simply play the myth.  It is story telling at the end of tge day and so long as it is plausible than that is fine with me.

[Sleepy Snoozy Skeletons]

What everyone else has said.

Plus. Wargaming is not that serious business after all. It is not supposed to be a perfect simulation of ancient battles, but more a retelling of a story and also a bit of fun. So in my book 'The Rule Of Cool' will always outweigh both archaeological and written sources.

A big +1 to this from me. To me it's a hobby I do for fun and in one project that might mean handwaving stuff and not sweating the details while in another I'll need the exact shoesizes of everyone involved and what they had for breakfast before the battle.

But you can't go wrong with rule of cool, after all that's how we got A Knight's Tale showing a bunch of knights arriving for a joust while "The boys are back in town" is blasting in the background 

[JW Boots]

… not supposed to be a perfect simulation of ancient battles….

My Arguing When… Wargame rules (Der Söldner plus its supplement The Warrior) are firmly based on the notion that wargames are not simulations but interpretations. A ruleset represents the interpretation of an author of the historical record, be that written, dug up, or otherwise. It is my believe that a ruleset should allow players to base their games on their interpretation, opinions and preferences…

[Daeothar]

Never trust anything ancient that hasn't been prodded by the trowel of Phil Harding. Trust it even less if the geophysics don't bizarrely contradict the findings of the rest of the team.

QFT