You got to know when to hold them, know when to fold them....

What Happens When Your Argument Falls Apart

 

So, I was looking for topics for some micro-research and I was going through the origins of medieval games. I had written about the history of bowling and turned my sights towards horseshoes. Modern books about games universally state that the game horseshoes started n the middle ages but none of them give any details. I realized that this would be a perfect topic to research. I had, however, taken a skeptical view on the subject in light of the lack of any medieval details listed in books on games. The same books did list basic information about the origins of bocce, lawn bowling, and other games that were played in the middle ages. But, nothing was listed for horseshoes.

I started researching and found no manuscript images of people playing horseshoes, nor any laws prohibiting the game. In my mind, I was convinced that the game did not exist in the middle ages and started looking for reasons to backup my belief. I started with the cost of a horseshoe: 3 to 5 pennies each in 15th century England. Not outrageous, but a day's wages for the common laborer. Modern rules have standardized on two shoes per player. So, almost a week's wages for just the shoes. Presumably used shoes would be cheaper, but harder to throw as they might not have been worn down evenly.

I next looked at the history of horseshoes. The ancient Romans had horseshoes, but they were nothing more than a metal plate sewed to the bottom of a leather bag that was tied around the feet of the horse. Not exactly throwing material. Yes, I realize that the metal can be removed from the bag, but I was building up an argument. Early medieval horseshoes were also metal plates, roundish pieces of flat metal with a half-moon notch at the rear so that the metal won't rub against the heal bulb. In my mind, this style of shoe couldn't be used to play horseshoes. The next development in horseshoe technology was in the early 15th century when we start to see the familiar horseshoe shape in manuscript images and in surviving shoes. These certainly could be used to play horseshoes but I was still unable to find any reference to horseshoes being used in a game. I had built up an idea in my head that even worn shoes were still too valuable to, forgive the pun, throw away. The iron would be heated and beaten into a new shoe or into something else.

I did a deep dive into the history of the game of horseshoes and managed to trace the game back to the Napoleonic war. Wellington had ordered up literally tons of horseshoes for his campaign and had them stockpiled in Portugal while his troops were massing and training. Bored British soldiers created a game they called ringers. Soldiers were pitching horseshoes at a bayonet stuck upright, into the ground. The rules they came up with were basically the same as modern, regulation horseshoes.

So. In my mind, I made a case that horseshoes, or ringers, wasn't a medieval game, but one from the 19th century. I thought that I had an air-tight case: the cost of the horseshoes; the lack of any manuscript images; the development of the "proper" shape to play the game; and the clear birth in the 19th century. Except all I had done was show that the game called ringers was invented in the 19th century, I had not shown that no one played a game involving horseshoes prior to then. The lack of evidence does not mean that the evidence was never there. I was working under the false pretense that the game had to have been played as it is now, with a metal upright that one would throw a curved horseshoe against.

What killed my argument was my discovery of a game played in Scotland that was documented to the late 12th Century. Flat stones, much like skipping stones, were thrown under hand at a large rock. The goal was to come closest to the rock without hitting it. Each player had two stones to pitch, one after the other. The references I found did not give this game a name, so I'm going to call it *bonk*, because if you hit the rock with your stone, it will make a "bonk" noise. If *bonk* can be played with flat stones, it can be played with flat horseshoes. In fact, it would be a better game since the iron shoes would make a "clang" noise if they hit the rock. I'm going to call this version of the game *clang*.

Imagine, if you would, a blacksmith and a farrier waiting for the apprentice to build up the fire so that they can start their day, just killing time playing *clang* with worn out shoes. There is no reason to think that if the game of horseshoes did exist in one form or another, that it was a wide spread game. It might have been only played by blacksmiths and farriers who would have had an almost unlimited supply of horseshoes as well as downtime in which to play. Now, this is speculation, since there are no manuscript images of anyone pitching horseshoes, but plenty of images of blacksmiths making them. But, it does show that it might have been possible that this was a medieval game that was invented in the early middle ages in Scotland, refined and played by blacksmiths as a private game, and eventually, taught to British soldiers during the Napoleonic war. The game became popular in England after the war and was eventually introduced to America.

All of this meant that I had to abandon my theory that horseshoes was a modern game that was incorrectly attributed to the middle ages. While I was unable to find any evidence that it was played, I couldn't maintain an argument that it could not have been played. I was able to poke a hole in each one of my points. In the end, I had to give up and switch over to another topic to research. Even though I wasn't able to write an article on my theory, I was able to use my notes and conclusions for this post detailing my failure. There are far too many books and magazine articles that draw conclusions from incomplete or erroneous information; we have to learn to identify when we are wrong about something and to cease looking for facts that support our pre-arrived conclusions. If you are making the argument that no one in the middle ages painted their armor, if you find a single, surviving example of painted armor, then you have to abandon your argument. Or at the very least, change it: "Due to this one sumptuary law, no one under the rank of knight painted their armor, in this one place." This is just an example; I haven't done any research into painted armor.