Sometimes I wonder about the credibility of historical artwork from the high middle ages. How serious should we take these paintings? As country rulers had absolute rule over all and everything that went on in their countries, how much bias was put into these paintings? Just because one or two paintings show 'all' the soldiers with their visors up during a battle, is it safe to assume that all did so in every battle? I mean, come on. At times we take ourselves too seriously and then read too much into historical paintings. To base our modern studies on historical paintings is way off base. Let's say that we didn't have the ability to record modern things as we really do. So, a 'history major' or budding, way too serious, recreator of the past, (in the future, mind you) will look, at Salvador Dali and think that his paintings are realistic? Will people in the future portray us from those types of paintings or modern day video's? That's why I think that people using historical artwork to force the past as authentic are out of touch. Humor goes a long way, and even though we may never fully understand the past and it's way of thought, don't think that through your studies and observations of the past you know it all.

Ive thought about that myself. What if the future gets this age all messed up Maybe throwing together the red scare and WWI time periods all together with a few people walking around in astronot suits just for fun.
Haha think of the 21st c reenactor saying well you can only narrow this time down to 100 years. So i based my costume on things i foundout through that 100 years time.
how much has changed in 100 years? You would have reenactors looking at decades.
and think of the hype that would follow...21c secret agent would train for at least 30 years, but had fewer gadget's, but the m-5 secret servecis had more gadgets and where popular with the women of the time. :D

Well they'll probably have fun trying to explain why all this armour and swords needed to be made in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. I'm getting buried in a suit of armour just to screw with the archeologists heads 1000 years from now.

Oh, I totally agree. We can't just throw out historical paintings or any of the things that you have mentioned. I guess what bothers me slightly, and I do mean slightly, is people who use all the afore mentioned items to be incredibly anal and stubborn to others interpretations and to use these sources as fact. I mean, we'll never really know until "Timeline" becomes a reality, nudge, nudge, wink, wink, so until that time comes I think a few people need to take a chill pill and not criticize and critique and overbare what others think. Let's say, for example, my father tells me that his experience in Vietnam was a living hell and he still has nightmares about it. I take this one source as my facts. I talk to Joe down the street and he claims that it wasn't anything close to hell, a little scary at times but not as disorganized and crazy as my father states, but I tell Joe he's full of it, because my father says otherwise. That's the kind of stubborness about historical paintings and documents that bugs me. (This example was only that. An example. I most definately have no intentions of getting into a Vietnam discussion on this forum.)

Like with any historical source, we need to temper it with the realization that artistic license has always existed and we need to know that that one source is just that: one source. We can't fully trust any source until there has been some corroboration with others. We need to use each source as a tool, not as the end-all source. Period literature is similarly fraught with issues of artistic license and the glorification of the patron. Does anyone really think a swordstroke can cleave helm, coif, skull, hauberk, shirt, torso, pelvis, and saddle and sink into the horse like we read in some of those romantic poems? :)