Anachronism, or just different?

It depends on context. I'd have questions about the logic of having some guy rock up in full, army-style camo gear but a person who spends his life hunting might be expected to sew different (but still found in nature) coloured patches into his clothing and smearing mud on his face. To me that's not a question of technology, it's a question of ingenuity and ingenuity isn't restricted to post-industrial revolution.

I believe foresters would have dressed in a way that made them inconspicuous in the woodlands of medieval England. The sumptuary laws made it illegal for people of lower class to wear bright colours, which would help conseal them.

But recently modern prinitive men have used paterns to break their shape in the panorama. The Australian Aboriginal painted white stripes in various designs on his body. Papua New Guineans wore different headdresses and ocres to break up the silhuette as well as the body mass. They also use moss and grass to change their shape.

So I don't think you are at all wrong, jimmy.

I believe Vetinari had a book detailing the very same thing. It wasn't common knowledge, but it was known ( to him if no one else ).

So I'd say it depends how you handle it.

As I pointed out in the other thread, camoflage is a technology, just like anything else, and a recent one at that.

The ability to understand how people see things is what led to camoflage, and that ability came late. Perspective drawing wasn't even invented until the 16th century. To us, perspective drawing seems obvious, but only because somone (Bruneleschi) worked it out. No one will claim that people didn't see in perspective before that, but the inability they had to transfer the images before their eyes to paper shows that their understanding of how people see was rudimentary.

You may ask, why they couldn't imitate animals? Well, until 1850, they didn't have the theory of evolution, that tells them that animals are suited to their environment. Before then, people believe that animals were given their fur colors by god, more or less willy nilly. It is not obvious that a tiger's stripes are camoflage. Without the scientific method, how could they figure out that they are? And who in the middle ages went around studying animals? The best they did were bestiaries, which merely listed the animals, showed a picture, and some anecdotes. It wasn't until the 16th and 17th centuries when people began to sit down and seriously study plants and animals, with experiments, long term observation and so forth. Thats another invisible piece of technology-a class of people with the inclination, tools, and time to actually study things.

Certainly the technology existed to make clothing with irregular colored patterns, but the understanding of optics, perspective, human psychology, etc did not. These are the invisible but very real component of technology. Also the need must exist; If your soldiers go around armed with swords, there's little point in camoflaging them; Camoflaged or not, you can see them long before you come into the range of their weapons. Soldiers with accurate, long range weapons are another story entirely. Before such weapons, easy recognition was considered to be more important, hence the bright uniforms.

Sure, you can argue that there's no real reason that medieval people couldn't have invented camoflage, just as you could argue that there's no real reason people in the 5th century couldn't invent perspective drawing. But they didn't. To argue in that way is to ignore the invisible part of technology, that is psychology, knowledge, and understanding, which they certainly did NOT have. Technology is more than just tools and machinery.

JimmyB27 said:

Okay, inspired by the Dressing for stealth thread. I suggested using disruptive patterning as a stealth method, and was shot down as this wasn't invented in our world until the last century.
So is this anachronistic in fantasy? In my view, it's not a high level of technology, and medieval persons could well have decided to copy animal patterning, or even come up with the idea alone.
It just seems a bit too much like trying to make the fantasy world follow the same development as our world. And that doesn't seem right.

What do you think? (In general, not just about the camoflage thing)

Click to expand...

Robin Hood had his merry men dress in Lincoln Green.

Ever wonder if that wasn't forest plaid?

What I mean is the Scots have been using plaid to "blend" into nightscapes, forest realms, etc. since at least the first century. It's documented by Tacitus. It's camouflage of a sort.

Tribal patterns brought up by Mumut is a very good example of primitive camouflage.

Amy

One would wonder if they were intended as such, or if they were side effects.

Scottish plaids are first and foremost, distinctive to each clan, and a means of identification.

Body painting is mostly to look fierce to other warriors.

Maybe explanations are more important than the act? A tiger doesn't understand how its stripes are camouflage, but benefits from them because of evolutionary processes. A 17th century man may not understand why certain way of clothing makes him harder to see, but he definitely can recognize the benefit of that clothing. If you can present this sort of knowledge as a culturally codified technique (like the previously mentioned Scottish plaids), I don't see any problem with it.

On the other hand, if you have a forest tribe that has developed effective camouflage for their environment which is governed by culture (taboos, traditions, etc), they're probably not going to migrate into a desert environment and instantly adjust their camouflage techniques.

If it's a Fantasy world--regardless of the tech level involved--I say "sell it to me in the context of the story" and keep going. If the reader can stop and question how something is so, then the writing fails and you have a problem--but not that it's an anachronism--it's that you didn't make this work within your concept of the world/story, which is a whole different set of fixes.

People have been using camouflage "technology" for thousands of years. Stone Age people used to wear deer antlers and skins on their bodies so they could try to sneak around their prey and kill it without startling it. Likewise, there are insects and animals that have developed means of camouflage. No, they didn't consciously choose this, but to say that camouflage is a recent invention is kind of odd. :/ Even the human utilization of camouflage, for stealth uses, isn't very new.

I think what would trip me up the most is the way you described it--"disruptive patterning"--that is what seems relatively modern to me. Yes, it correctly describes what the camouflage is, but would they use such a phrase in the context of a fantasy story? People who drew pictures of bison on cave walls, hoping to draw them near and kill them, didn't call this technique "sympathetic magic," for example--that's a modern term--but they did make use of the technique itself. Who's to say there weren't perspective drawings before the term "perspective drawing" came about and people adequately understood what it meant? There certainly must be ancient artwork that makes use of perspective, even if the artists didn't understand this principle. Lack of conscious understanding does not mean something didn't exist--it just means it wasn't understood well enough to describe it properly. Just because people might have thought the sun was some sort of god, for example, doesn't mean the sun didn't exist. It just didn't exist as they thought it did. And if people couldn't describe something properly, like "disruptive patterning," perhaps that's why we nowadays think they just didn't have such technology or whatever. They might have had it, they just didn't call it by that name.

Some things like the idea of "astral travel" or "out-of-body experience" are considered relatively new, but people of various cultures have been doing this for ages. They just didn't call it "astral travel"--maybe they called it soul traveling, or visiting the gods, or dying and coming back to life, whatever.

I don't think you were out of place mentioning the camouflage, just maybe the phrasing used to describe it was out of place.

I'm not understanding why camouflage being a relatively young technology is an issue. From a military perspective, there has simply been no reason; only recently has the idea of troops not being massed in one group been part of strategy. Even in primitive tribes, the paint has been more a part of prepping for battle and intimidating the enemy; it wasn't part of sneaking up on on them.

As for hunting: Again, there simply hasn't been a reason. Most primitive tribes either use traps, or realized that most animals effectively use scent as their most important sense, and knew of real way to trick animals (beyond masking our scent behind a nastier smell). The hunter's most important skills have been with ranged weapons and tracking; being silent and staying downwind have been more important than getting within range to kill with a spear.

Yes, groups have worn green; however, it has more to do with symbolic use than anything else. Robin Hood wanted to be associated with the forest, so he wore green to demonstrate that link. Highlanders associate themselves with the green rolling hills, making green a major part of their wardrobe; their light blue warpaint would ruin any camouflage potential of what they wore, and they preferred to battle in as little as possible anyway. Even with primitive tribes, they would have copied what animals wore, probably little more.

To put another way, it took realizing that there was value in camouflage, and that animals were using it; after all, with our superior visual acuity we would have seen through most animal camouflage tricks, and figured that they were mostly decorative rather than useful.

So it shouldn't be a surprise that camo is a recent development...

FR

tehuti88 said:

People have been using camouflage "technology" for thousands of years. Stone Age people used to wear deer antlers and skins on their bodies so they could try to sneak around their prey and kill it without startling it. Likewise, there are insects and animals that have developed means of camouflage. No, they didn't consciously choose this, but to say that camouflage is a recent invention is kind of odd. :/ Even the human utilization of camouflage, for stealth uses, isn't very new.

Click to expand...

1) When we are referring to it being a "recent development", we are referring to human use, and our developments in that. Using a semantics argument is more pseudo-intellectual than of any actual use.

2) Humans dressing up in animal skins is more ceremonial than practical. It had more to do with getting into the spirit of the hunt than anything remotely practical. Especially when you realize that, thanks to spears, slings, and arrows, they didn't need to get that close. Outside of large animals, they didn't need to get that close, and large animals don't usually run from hunters.

FR

The phrase "disruptive patterning" is modern.
The technique is not. Folks have been using it for centuries.
Look up "ghillie suit" on Wikipedia.

In the LOTR, Tolkien has elven cloaks that help hide their wearer from unfriendly eyes. I don't remember anybody taking him to task for anachronism.

Heck, he's even got a ring that makes its wearer invisible and that technology has yet to be invented!

Sarpedon said:

As I pointed out in the other thread, camoflage is a technology, just like anything else, and a recent one at that.

Click to expand...

Aren't we talking fantasy here? I don't see any problem with using a form of camoflage in a medieval type fantasy, especially if the person is an theif or assassin who might happen to wonder why certain animals are harder to see in nature than others.

I can't believe all the camo-phobes here. Makes me wonder how restrictive some of your "fantasies" really are.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go look up anachronism.

Well ferret, again as I pointed out in the other thread, that automobiles were invented before modern camoflage, and no one would put an automobile in a medieval fantasy.

Anachronism means something that is not placed in its correct time period. Like renaissance festivals, or M16s during the civil war.

In fiction, they can make the reader go 'huh?' and cease suspending disbelief. For example:

Sir Robert: Oh! Help! I am undone!
Sir William: What ails you, Sir Robert?
R: An Ogre hath cast his spear at me, and sore wounded me in my fundament!
W: Alas! Tis a heavy wound, by my troth! But lo! Hither come Lady Elzbeth, she is well versed in chirgeury.
Lady Elzbeth: Take heart, Sir Robert, I shall heal thee forthwith. First I shall give thee an injection of penicillin so that the wound will not become inflamed, and too, an injection of morphine, to ease thy pain.
R: Ah! truly thou art a fine chirgeon. Wilt thou be my wife?
E: Nay, Sir Robert, I hath given my troth not to wed any man, at least until I am finished with my residency.
R: Alas! But I can abide.
W: But forsooth, by that time the effects of the morphine will have worn off.
R: Thou mockest me!
W: Nay, good Sir Robert. To prove myself, I shall betake me to find this Ogre that hath wounded thee. Wherever he may go, no matter how long it shall take, I shall find it.
R: And then I can place a suit against him in the king's court, calling for a penalty of not more than ten but not less than 4 years of imprisonment, and a fine of not less than ten thousand, but not more than one hundred thousand shillings!
E: I fear it shall be a long litigation. Until such time as it be complete, please accept this suit of clothes, cunningly wrought by the men of the west, followers of the wise Picasso. Its disruptive patterns will befuddle the eyes of ogres and keep you from further projectile attack.
R: By my troth, thou art the finest lady of the land!

Didn't I read this (with different characters) in one of the Myth books?

Ninjas in medieval Japan cloaked themselves in black, to hide at night. As others have pointed out, the concept is neither anachronistic nor a problem in fantasy fiction. Now, if you equip your concealed warrior with a laser weapon, you have a problem.

caw

Unless, of course, there's a reason for having laser weapons in your Fantasy novel--like it's an Urban Fantasy.

Sarpedon said:

Well ferret, again as I pointed out in the other thread, that automobiles were invented before modern camoflage, and no one would put an automobile in a medieval fantasy.

Click to expand...

Are you writing a factual historical medieval story? Then you probably wouldn't use camoflage.

If you are writing a medieval FANTASY, you can do whatever you damned well please and the readers, who are pretty intelligent people, will understand that it's your fantasy and that they can expect fun things like camoflage and Chitty Chitty Bang Bang.

Smiling Ted said:

The phrase "disruptive patterning" is modern.
The technique is not. Folks have been using it for centuries.
Look up "ghillie suit" on Wikipedia.

Click to expand...

I've only been able to find references that go back maybe a century or two; that would still put it into the modern era. It's also noted in the Wikipedia entry that, although great for camouflage, they are horrible to stay in, as they tend to capture heat rather well.

Of course, that still puts them behind the automobile, as their use outside of catching poachers wasn't in use until WWI. Also, since they were essentially moving blinds, it would have taken a rifle to make them useful; any other weapon would have ruined the effect, giving the prey a chance to run...

FR

I don't know, I didn't read the myth books.

I mean, I read two of them, and no more.

And I never said that dressing in inconspicuous, solid colors is a problem.

Mumut said:

The sumptuary laws made it illegal for people of lower class to wear bright colours, which would help conseal them.

Click to expand...

Also brighter dies were expensive.

But in terms of stealth, from personal experience I've crept up on people wearing NVGs while I wore flectarn. But I did this not by stalking or sneaking around. Deception is just another form of stealth.

A lot of stealth depends not only your garb but what your outlined against, movement, noise (in the woods you'll hear people long before you'll see them)

FinbarReilly said:

I'm not understanding why camouflage being a relatively young technology is an issue. From a military perspective, there has simply been no reason; only recently has the idea of troops not being massed in one group been part of strategy. Even in primitive tribes, the paint has been more a part of prepping for battle and intimidating the enemy; it wasn't part of sneaking up on on them.

Click to expand...

This is an important distinction. In more modern times weapon systems are designed to counteract a situation. Why did people stand in lines with muskets? Because the musket was not all that accurate. With that in mind there was no reason for camouflage because you could not hide. It was more important to be able to identify friends and maintain unit cohesion.

From what I've read of medieval technology, many swords and such were developed more independently than to counteract a particular threat. Now that said, since this is fiction, I don't see why you can't implement new technologies if there is a logical reason for their development. Still you may just have to call it something different so people don't make the modern world connection right off the bat.

In Brandon Sanderson's Mistborn, the Mistborn that hide in the mists at night were a ghillie suit. He describes it exactly as a ghillie suit, just doesn't call it that.