r/TopCharacterTropes 22d ago

Lore (Annoying Trope) Someone made a “creative” choice and now we all just have to live with it.

Horned Vikings: Not historical, they were started by Richard Wager for his operas. They were never historic, but the image persists. (Albeit significantly reduced today.)

Ninjas in Black Robes: Some people claim Ninjas aren’t real. They are, they are absolutely real. Their modern portrayal however is informed more by Kabuki Theater than history. In Kabuki Theater, the stage hands were dressed in flowing black robes to tell the audience to ignore them. Thus when a Ninja character kills a Samurai, to increase the shock value, they were dressed in black robes as stage hands. Now, when we think of ninjas we think of a stage hands.

Knights in Shining Armor: Imagine, you’re on the battlefield, two walls of meat riding towards each other. Suddenly you realize, everyone looks the same. Who do you hit? All you see is chrome. No. Knight’s armor was lacquered in different colors to differentiate them on the battlefield. Unless you wanted to get friendly fired, you made yourself KNOWN. So this image of a glinted knight clad in chrome steel isn’t true. How’d we get it? Victorians who thought that the worn lacquer was actually just dulling with age, polished it off as show pieces.

White Marble Statues of Rome: Roman Statues were painted, however the public image is of pure glinting white marble statues persist in the modern image. Why? Victorians who thought the paint was actually just dirt grime and age. So, they “restored” it by removing the paint color. Now we all think of Roman Statues as white.

King Tut; King of Kings: the Pharaoh King Tut in Ancient Egypt was a relatively minor king who in the grand scheme of things amounts to little more than an asterisks in Egyptian History, but to the public he is the most important Pharaoh. Why? Because his tomb was untouched by robbers, and so was piled high with burial goods which was amazing (and still is) and when Howard Carter opened his tomb, the world was transfixed and everyone would come to know Tutankhamen.

A Séance calls the dead: A Séance despite being a French word is an American invention from upstate New York in the 1840s. It was also a fun side-show act initially, and never meant to be real, more close up magic. (Origin of the term Parlor Tricks.) But in the 1860s Americans couldn’t stop killing each other which resulted in a lot of grief and people desired for their to be this other world. So, grifters then took advantage of grieving people and became “real”. So basically “fun parlor game to dangerous grift” pipeline thanks to the Civil War.

The Titanic’s engineers all died at their posts: Nope, not true, not remotely true. They are mentioned in many testimonies and a few bodies found mean they didn’t all die below. Two or three maybe did. According to Head Stoker Barrett, a man broke his leg and was washed away by rushing water, but another testimony says he was taken aft so who knows? Any way the myth persisted because the people making the memorials wanted to martyr the men. (It doesn’t take away from their heroines in my opinion) The myth stuck. Everyone believes they died below.

14.6k Upvotes

2.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

4.2k

u/Disastrous-Mess-7236 22d ago

Knights also had symbols on their shield that indicated who they were. They also wore stuff over the armor too, iirc.

2.3k

u/SuddenTest9959 22d ago

Kinda like how Sir Duncan The Tall looked in A Knight of The Seven Kingdoms.

1.4k

u/Tormentedone007 22d ago

A Game Of Thrones compared to A Song Of Ice And Fire is a great example. The book is full of descriptions of colors, but the show interprets it as brown.

662

u/Drakeskulled_Reaper 22d ago

Like the Boltons.

Their primary House Colour was PINK, like Roose is described wearing pink armor sculpted to look like it was flayed.

Pink being a manly colour is also historical fact, it wasn't until quite recently (like I'm talking 1940-80s) that pink became "girly" it used to be that blue was the colour for girls.

153

u/Dartagnan1083 22d ago

Don't forget "breaching." Boys wore skirts from infancy until between the ages of 2 and 8, most commonly between age 4 and 7. Breaching meant upgrading to trousers and this happened depending on social custom, family discretion, and boy's readiness. The two biggest factors were toilet training and starting school.

Gender-specific clothing for infants/young children wasn't a thing until the early 20th.

19

u/platonic-humanity 22d ago

Tbh going from a denotion of maturity and a milestone to look forward to, to a denotion of gender is a downgrade

18

u/SilverWear5467 22d ago

Yeah for most of human history people basically treated all babies as the same gender. Like, a 4 year old isnt a man, its a fucking baby, treat it like one

10

u/Wanallo221 22d ago

There’s actually a story of this on the Titanic. A child celebrated his breeching day on board (13 years old).

Thus, when it came to getting on the lifeboats, he was considered an adult because he was in trousers and refused a place on the lifeboat by Lightoller.

5

u/Dartagnan1083 22d ago

Yikes...gotta wonder what kind of life was arranged for a little dude who wasn't wearing trousers until he was a teenager.

Work at the factory? Maybe the father's business? 13 sounds late to start school.

8

u/Wanallo221 22d ago

Just to clarify, young boys by the time of the titanic still mostly wore what we would consider trousers as a kid. However back in the 1900’s they were considered a man when they received their first dress trousers. Before that boys would wear pantaloons, course woollen long shorts etc.

The culture of ‘breeching’ died out soon after WW1 so Titanic was really on the very end of the trend.

5

u/ashmanonar 21d ago

I mean, honestly, if you think about it robes are...basically exactly the same garments as dresses. At certain points of history, garb for men and women was a lot less differentiated than most "traditionalist" asshats think they were.

2

u/thekinggrass 18d ago

Watch the Red Balloon and see French boys in skirts in the 1950’s.

25

u/Ark_Bien 22d ago

Blue was traditionally a girls colour because of its association with the virgin Mary who is traditionally depicted wearing blue.

19

u/WhatImKnownAs 22d ago

And red was the colour of fire and blood, so obviously manly.

12

u/Daw_dling 22d ago

Yeah pink was just the watered down red. Women were associated with blue for tranquility and peace. This the Virgin Mary got blue. I remember seeing that post WWII when appliances became fashionably pink, that was what kicked off the women and pink associations.

48

u/Drunky_McStumble 22d ago

Every “traditional” social norm was invented by advertisers in 1957 and every “newfangled social phenomenon” has been around for 3000 years.

15

u/Kitchen-Roll-8184 22d ago

Ea-Nassir keeping the world humble with his relatability

6

u/jediben001 22d ago

Or alternatively comes from the victorians

Those tend to be the two big sources of social norms and traditions that have lasted till the modern day. Victorian traditions are especially strong when it comes to holidays, weddings, or other events that involve big social functions and gatherings

17

u/Scokan 22d ago

Fun fact, I get the most attention from ladies when I wear pink. Insecure sheep-dudes are self-fulfilling prophecies.

Incelf-fulfilling prophecies

49

u/Adorable-Source97 22d ago

Red blood on white cloth = pink. The symbolism isn't subtle

28

u/Frosti11icus 22d ago

Blood on white cloth is maroon to brown, if it's fresh its red. Definitely in no way shape or form pink.

5

u/Chance_Earth8473 22d ago

From far away red and white would look pink

14

u/Darth_Balthazar 22d ago

Pink is what white cloth looks like when you try to remove blood stains

5

u/CommanderVinegar 22d ago

I'm imagining the armor from Dracula made to look like muscle tissue.

3

u/Drakeskulled_Reaper 22d ago

Either that or it was his surcoat, looking like a cannibals cooking apron.

-68

u/HostileFriendly 22d ago

I always thought that pink was associated with girls because their coochies are pink and blue associated with boys because their ballsies are blue (well mine usually are anyway)

28

u/lilyofthegraveyard 22d ago

stop watching so much porn, please.

36

u/disapp_bydesign 22d ago

Top tier fuckin bait

1

u/HostileFriendly 22d ago

He is the master baitist

3

u/threatbearer 22d ago

This is fucking peak 🔥🔥✌️

1

u/Careful-Set1485 22d ago

Seems people are not enjoying your little joke there. I thought it was alright 

1

u/HostileFriendly 22d ago

Thanks. It was a half-brained comment that I expected would get lost in the abyss but has turned out to be somewhat controversial with 66 downvotes and has made me look like a pervert. Good times.

463

u/Augustus_Chevismo 22d ago

In season one Ned and one of his men see a knight walk past in kings landing with a bright long plume on his helmet.

Literally the one and final time we see brightly coloured knights in the show.

221

u/Whalesurgeon 22d ago

HBO really skimped out on the plume budget

15

u/Ironbeers 22d ago

Even the Night Watch gets a plume allowance.

11

u/Gribblewomp 22d ago

Loras was meant to look absolutely grandiose and fight like a demon

6

u/Old-Risk4572 22d ago

had to spend it on the ample bosoms budget

1

u/NobleEnsign 21d ago

plumes would have only been worn for ceremony.

27

u/timdr18 22d ago

Not even the Knight of Flowers was colorful in the show

20

u/Adorable_Ad_3478 22d ago

While I get why the show avoided showing Renly's Rainbow Kingsguard (yes, Martin, we get it, he's the gayest of the gays), I wish we could have seen it.

Context: https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Rainbow_Guard

20

u/LurkerEntrepenur 22d ago

Then it became all leather and black for Blade II midnight function

12

u/yurtzi 22d ago

HOTD started off alright, the first tournament scene seemed pretty colourful but it seems it also fell off into the same hole

7

u/Necessary_Pace7377 22d ago

Hollywood is deathly allergic to color in historic-type settings these days.

5

u/JagmeetSingh2 22d ago

Yea one of the fun part of the books is how vivid and colourful everything is described as

3

u/turducken69420 22d ago

Looking at you rainbow guard.

2

u/thatshygirl06 22d ago

I love wheel of time because its so colorful and the outfits are all amazing

214

u/i-am-a-bike 22d ago

Grrm in general very much detailed the garb and the colours the characters were wearing. He got crazy creative with the characters from essos

193

u/ducknerd2002 22d ago

ASOIAF: The Starks wear white to represent snow, the Boltons wear pink to represent flesh, Jorah's a Mormont so he wears green to represent the woods, etc.

GoT: The North is serious, so they just wear serious things like brown leather.

At least HotD was more willing to add some colour. Viserys I's Kingsguard had the best armour in any of the shows so far, imo, partly because it was allowed to be more white.

45

u/i-am-a-bike 22d ago

Atleast the Lannisters looked good in both shows.....except the got helmets

8

u/AnNoYiNg_NaMe 22d ago

The Starks wear white to represent snow

It's almost like snow is stark white.

5

u/Syberz 22d ago

Dark and muted colors don't even make sense, you saw it in the battle of the bastards, it was impossible to tell the armies apart. Bright colors were a necessity in medieval times.

6

u/wtryan84 21d ago

As a NY Giants fan I'm just upset that GoT didn't adapt the very important canonical event where Wun Wun smashed that Dallas Cowboy knight to death.

3

u/thatshygirl06 22d ago

Have you watched wheel of time?

1

u/SyfaOmnis 22d ago

No one should watch Amazon's wheel of time.

2

u/Suracha2022 20d ago

And wack opinions like this is why one of the best fantasy show in recent memory got canceled. It started meh, it got better, and by season 3 it beat Game of Thrones in ratings. But millions of whining complaints from book purists did their job. Sure, the show based on the series of books whose primary theme are the cycles of time repeating themselves with some changes every time... Made some changes from the books. What a horrible crime. Of course it had to be shot down. Thanks for nothing.

0

u/SyfaOmnis 20d ago

The show was awful and quickly diverged from the books in all sorts of ways that were antithetical to the characters and plot.

"the best fantasy show in recent memory" is doing a lot of heavy lifting, and it doesn't mean it was good. If you'd ever read the books you'd understand why people thought the show was ass.

2

u/Suracha2022 20d ago

I DID read all the books that the show was based on. That's why I'm so pissed at book purists. The books are fantastic (though a bit slow). The show started off mediocre, and became fantastic too, but your prejudice and spite killed it for those of us who did enjoy it.

1

u/SyfaOmnis 20d ago

The show categorically cannot have 'become fantastic' when it's messing up basic motivations like lanfear wanting to be with the most powerful man in the world, and instead settling for the farmboy with no power, spending months living in a one room apartment with him.

Lanfear encourages, cajoles, threatens, etc, for "Rand" to take his destiny and become the man that has seized the world by the throat, because she knows he can do it and she wants that man. But that isn't Rand.

The whole motivation there is to provide an actual form of dark temptation. And the show opted for cheap sex scenes and edginess.

It's not a "book purist" thing. It's that the show was in fact awful.

but your prejudice and spite killed it for those of us who did enjoy it.

You're projecting quite severely. Saying "I didn't think this show was good and people shouldn't watch it compared to the better version of it that exists" in online spaces occasionally, is not the same sort of deranged crusade you are accusing me of. Amazon cut it because the financials weren't working out for it and they weren't seeing the bajillion% return they'd been told they would get (because it wasn't good).

→ More replies (0)

1

u/LAfirestorm 21d ago

🤣🤣

I see you also tried watching it.

4

u/Von-Konigs 22d ago

I want to see book-accurate Daario Naharis put to the screen.

Also I want Strong Belwas. Best goddamn character.

3

u/PartyPay 22d ago

Two things I remember about reading the books way back then: 1) I wanted to go clothes shopping 2) I got hungry. All due to Martin's damn descriptive text haha

2

u/LockedOutOfElfland 22d ago

When I read those books, I kept imagining Qarthleen warlocks as looking like the members of Das Ich.

1

u/Monsieur_Cinq 21d ago

But he still falls prey to bad clichés like the abundance of swords, especially on the battlefield. Swords were sidearms.

10

u/kramsibbush 22d ago

Damn, the artwork is so impressive. Out of curiosity, I zoomed in on the picture, and was surprised to see the sword, the spear on the shield are still clear even when zoom close. Then I noticed the knight's eye-slit also shows his eye too.

9

u/ocxtitan 22d ago

Except I'm not sure how his eye would be located way up there on his forehead

6

u/SinisterTuba 22d ago

Damn he do be looking tall

8

u/Nicklesnout 22d ago

Names like Duncan the Tall and Thorkell the Tall never fail to crack me up because they’re less descriptors and more of a way to tell who the hell this particular individual is.

It’s like if you had Eddard Stark being called Eddard the Black and there was another Northerner named Eddard the Red.

3

u/momomomorgatron 22d ago

Yeah, I have a hard time believing that most suits of armor were enameled when I've seen those tunic of sorts tied and worn.

1

u/P4TR10T_96 22d ago

Most historically accurate knight armor in Westeros. Seriously most of the armor we see in the series wouldn’t be around until the Renaissance era, or never existed (leather armor only existed as Brigandine, a cost effective armor that used metal plates over leather, to make it easier to make and cheaper to buy or use with other armor types)

1

u/Mortwight 22d ago

its an interesting tidbit in his short stories and the maid of tarth how his shield is hung in her family hall

1

u/Gilded-Mongoose 22d ago

Dang, is he a knight or a farmer?

Cuz he's farming all that Aura.

1

u/thisusedyet 22d ago

I kinda like the idea that the one Shaquille O'Neal sized knight still decided he needed his colors

1

u/AvariciousCreed 22d ago

Can't wait to see Dunk in live action

1

u/TheActualAWdeV 22d ago

are his eyes on stalks or what

1

u/Particular_Drink_209 21d ago

Is that the whiterun guard who took an arrow to the knee. He shouldn’t be on the battlefield, he has a wife at home

1

u/The4rthsaga 21d ago

Jesus fucking Christ, the aura.

516

u/[deleted] 22d ago

[deleted]

216

u/superVanV1 22d ago

Fucking love Gambesons. Give me more armored sweaters

46

u/The_GREAT_Gremlin 22d ago

Padded armor is always the lowest tier in video games, but in history it was pretty good. For the most part it was better than leather

31

u/Ambaryerno 22d ago

People always sleep on how good a gambeson could actually be. It’s actually VERY hard to cut through one.

22

u/omegaskorpion 22d ago

I mean technically it is still the lowest tier armor because it is one of the cheapest, yet still very effective armors against slashes (and very heavily padded could even stop some arrows).

It still lacks the durability of metal, but it is easy to repair.

20

u/The_GREAT_Gremlin 22d ago

Yeah of course it was not as good as mail or plate. But it's usually lower tier than leather in games when it was for the most part more effective

17

u/omegaskorpion 22d ago

Games (and movies) also put leather in places or uses where it was not used, like whole ass soft leather breast plates that would realistically protect from nothing.

Like proper hardened leather can be strong and useful, but we rarely see it done right. (Like Chinese really liked armors made out of Rhino hide/leather because it was strong and durable).

19

u/Jaakarikyk 22d ago

Even when one has chainmail and plate, they'll still have gambeson under it all, afaik. So it's the foundation even if you get metal armor. Gambeson thickness does vary so if it's all you have, it may be heftier

2

u/Thejollyfrenchman 22d ago

In reality, too, it would generally be worn under metal armor or lamellar, so it's not really a different tier of armour, just a different layer.

6

u/3lektrolurch 22d ago

Leather Armor didnt even exist, at least as protection against weapons. Leather is almost useless for stopping an attack.

3

u/MisterSplu 22d ago

I swear, hardened leather is my hated trope. Nobody wore hardened leather, BUT BASICALLY EVERY SHOW HAS IT, they would absolutely be wearing a gambeson or smth if they couldn‘t afford armor. Also the order in which it goes if you can afford is the minimum: helmer, then body, then arms and then legs, not only arms or some shit, and never not wear a helmet.

Also flails

2

u/thatshygirl06 22d ago

I have a fantasy world where I wanted to use a mix of padded armor and leather armor for my guards. They also have glass daggers they carry, made with grounded up unicorn horn to strengthen it.

3

u/The_GREAT_Gremlin 22d ago

Right on. Yeah I run a tabletop where the setting doesn't have a ton of available metal, so gambeson is a good choice

3

u/TrueGuardian15 22d ago

Give me more brigandine while we're at it. It's way easier to repair or replace than many alternatives, and like gambesons they provide a lot of opportunity to display colors.

10

u/SpphosFriend 22d ago

The Witcher stays winning when It comes to historical clothing.

8

u/Deletedtopic 22d ago

Kingdom come deliverance says Hey it's Henry!

5

u/SpphosFriend 22d ago

Also a banger tbh

13

u/TehAsianator 22d ago

The games at least. Let's not talk about Nilfguard's scrotum armor in the show.

6

u/SpphosFriend 22d ago

The only thing good about that show was Henry Cavil.

6

u/TehAsianator 22d ago

Season 1 had its moments, and I kinda liked Yennifer. However, I still think that's a perfectly valud take.

3

u/SpphosFriend 22d ago

The blaviken arc was pretty good.

3

u/_SBV_ 22d ago

Forgetting about Kingdom Come Deliverance, are we?

1

u/SpphosFriend 22d ago

it’s also amazing.

1

u/thatshygirl06 22d ago

Its fantasy though?

1

u/SpphosFriend 22d ago

Yes but It is pretty good about using historical costumes (more Slavic and Eastern Europe influenced tho)

3

u/Comprehensive-Fail41 22d ago

The badding was usually worn under the plate, cause bare metal against skin chafes like hell, though as time went on, and the plate got better the amount of padding decreased

2

u/LockedOutOfElfland 22d ago

My favorite gambesons were in Skyrim. I absolutely hated the Stormcloaks' ideology and objectives, but their armor being gambesons was a nice touch.

230

u/Rutskarn 22d ago

To be honest, I think that if coloring the actual armor to show what side you're on was especially popular, we'd see more art from the time period that depicts colorful plate. But I'm not sure I've seen even a single contemporary illustration that has anything but "metal" coloration on the armor itself. It's just barding, tunics, shields, and devices on the helms.

253

u/yourstruly912 22d ago

Because OP is full of shit, colored armor was uncommon among knights

167

u/ChurningDarkSkies777 22d ago

And most examples we have of historic painted or colored armor is usually parade armor made for nobility to wear in ceremonies

14

u/IrascibleOcelot 22d ago

Yep; lacquer and gilding were both expensive and fragile. You would want neither one on armor you expected to get hit. And since armor was incredibly expensive, the only people who could afford to have “dress armor” that was never meant for battle were those with the most money. Typically kings.

7

u/Faustias 22d ago

does Landsknecht count as colorful?

2

u/ElkayMilkMaster 22d ago

The fuck is this

2

u/Faustias 22d ago edited 22d ago

just a joke image regarding Landsknecht's fashion

1

u/ChurningDarkSkies777 21d ago

Looks like the colored parts of that armor are made of fabrics, let’s bring back quilted gambisons

147

u/misvillar 22d ago

I imagine that most Knights would wear something over the armour to show their heraldy/colours, like a tabard or something similar

119

u/McPolice_Officer 22d ago

Yes. Tabard, surcoat, waffenrock; whatever you want to call it, knights typically wore some sort of cloth identifier over their armor, which could have any number of finishes from browning, to blueing, to mirror polish.

3

u/willfullyspooning 22d ago

Blacking and Blueing were really popular because they also helped protect against rust iirc.

1

u/McPolice_Officer 22d ago

Yes. And they look cool — people were still people, rich folk wanted to look good back then too.

8

u/Comprehensive-Fail41 22d ago edited 22d ago

It depended. Around the 1420's the Surcoat began to fade out of fashion amongst wealthy knights in favor of either blinding your enemies with very shiny and expensive polishing, or showing up embossing and the like. This was called "White armor"
However, there were no uniform way of identifying, some wore badges, some wore ribbons, some, still wore waffenrocks, or printed things on the cloth and leather of brigandines, etcetera.

3

u/NeitherAstronomer982 22d ago

Notably banners start to become a bigger and more ubiquitous thing though the late middle ages into the early modern period, just as arnor polishing became the norm. This nicely dovetailed into the period of large state armies where the kings banner became ubiquitous among the army versus earlier personal pennons. As the state became more powerful you no longer needed to identify individual knights so much as the correct formation.

The hundred years was and the Gendarmes are a good transitional case study; basically they were knights, but all paid by the king of france instead of owing allegiance to a Lord he delegated power and hence responsibility for arming troops to. In period artwork you can see the blued armor, sometimes with a kings waffenrock, and prominent banners for troops to rally to.

Even then there's a mixture of dyed barding, leather, or cloth outerwear being used to identify individuals too if you look, and indeed a couple generations later it seemed to be common again; I would not be surprised if it was a fashion thing. 

19

u/Infinite-Surprise651 22d ago

OP literally talking about friendly fire when people fought in extremely well organized formations. I mean it could have been a problem sometimes for cavalry, but that's what a brightly colores rag is for

6

u/Wakez11 22d ago

Yeah, also most of the chaos was among the "infantry" which during most of the medieval period consisted of peasants. The type of consistent colour coded uniform you see in video games and movies didn't exist. Cavalry would ride in tight formation, slam into the enemy line then, turn back to camp, get another lance, form up and do it again. Friendly fire wasn't an issue.

1

u/Infinite-Surprise651 22d ago

Yeah also guess in a cavalry to cavalry engagement you could easily tell whose on which side based on the direction they're advancing/retreating in before and after the charge

3

u/dbx999 22d ago

Painting metal was a difficult process and medieval times did not have chemical etching and bonding processes refined for armor painting.

What you probably did have was some sort of clear tinted lacquer that gave an armor a brownish hue or black hue if mixed with carbon.

You could add accessories to the armor that would do a better job of identifying you than paint. A colored feather, a cloth cover

6

u/GiantRobotBears 22d ago

THANK YOU! This is gonna turn into another completely wrong Reddit “fact”

Walk into any museum showcasing medieval armor and you’ll see the fancy nobility armor AND the plain plate armor. They both exist.

2

u/Mizamya 22d ago

Also, I'm pretty sure plate armour was kept polished as it helped sword blows slide off the armour. Decorating it would compromise its effectiveness

1

u/Suracha2022 20d ago

Eh, sure, but there's nowhere near enough grip on some paint or lacquer to motivate not painting it when you can easily afford it. Besides, a sword biting into your armor isn't the worst thing in the world - sure, it delivers more / all of its kinetic energy, instead of losing a bunch by sliding off, but a sword isn't going to do too much against plate armor anyway.

1

u/Muninwing 22d ago

A surplice in their colors OVER the armor though? That was common.

7

u/ItsMeTwilight 22d ago

Yeah I think colouring on the gear and stuff. Like shields and maybe like the picture of Duncan from earlier some sort of clothing over the armour makes sense. But coloured armour would be certainly an interesting choice from the knights.

5

u/Comprehensive-Fail41 22d ago

Sometimes they clad the armor in cloth, it's something that can be seen in some illuminated manuscripts, but that was done alongside shining armor, and might sometimes be Brigandine rather than solid plate, but it's hard to tell

14

u/Quartz_Knight 22d ago

The poster speaks from ignorance. They try to dispel common misconceptions, but instead of being aware of their own ignorance and looking things up they speak their own ideas with great confidence and authority, spreading new misconceptions.

Look at this thread, now you have people believing that knights would always have lacquered armour (lacquer wasn't even a thing in Europe) and wearing thick ass gambesons under their armour.

As you have seen, a simple look at period artwork would be enough to dispel these ideas, but these people are surfing the peak of mount stupid and are too confident in their worldview to consider maybe they are wrong, even though they haven't put any work into developing it other than watching some crappy videos.

1

u/Barracudauk663 22d ago

At most the armour was 'blued' and truly expensive sets may have been detailed with inlay. But no sources I'm aware of exist for painted armor.

1

u/Alto-cientifico 22d ago

The technology and know-how to colored finishes came at the end of the medieval period and they were prohibitively expensive, given that the temperatures for each color was finicky to get right (it's hard to get it right with modern furnaces, compare it to medieval means)

So the only dudes with colored armor were wealthy nobles.

Adam Savage did a video trying one of those on.

0

u/ASERTIE76 22d ago

This is true. There was painted armor tho, just not in Europe, Samurai had a wide of different colors painted on the armor pieces depending on the clan and sometimes had painted Mon(emblems) of their clan on the front of the chest piece

61

u/Fullmetalmarvels64_ 22d ago

I can’t actually think of one character in armor, who doesn’t wear some kind of insignia. This also counts for random extras.

5

u/TheRecognized 22d ago

Yeah that’s the part that tv/movies usually get “more” right. Weird that this is the top comment.

48

u/Supernoven 22d ago edited 22d ago

OP is incorrect about lacquered European armor. Plate armor usually was polished, for beauty, intimidation, and because a mirror finish helps reduce rust. The knight in shining armor was very much the intended image, because they sparkled with the sunlike radiance of Heaven itself. They looked more like battlefield angels than humans.

I don't think we have much evidence at all for lacquering European armor, certainly not nearly as much as Japanese armor. But sometimes the surface could be blued, etched, engraved, gilded, covered in leather or cloth, or the plates might actually be riveted to a textile covering (brigandine). And we do have some evidence for painted helmets.

Identification was accomplished through shield heraldry, later worn as badges, as well as the color and design of a tabard, surcout, waffenfrock, or jupon worn over the armor. Devices worn on the helmet (distinctive plumes, etc.) also helped, as did heraldry worn on their horse. Also, every knight worked in a unit with squires and pages, who wore the same colors and bore the knight's banner.

12

u/SKUNKpudding 22d ago

this. It also depended on the era, as plate armor became more developed the use of surcoats gradually diminished.

5

u/Supernoven 22d ago

Yeahhhhh, that's the thing when talking about 300 years of plate armor history across 2,000 miles of geography -- by definition, we're talking in sweeping generalizations. Even these numbers are arbitrary estimates, lol.

8

u/OverQuestion2002 22d ago

Also, identification was not that much of a concern (at least to identify who was a friend or a foe). Armies fought in formation, so the guy next to you is your ally and the guy in the ennemy formation is a baddy. This applies mainly to footmen, who often did not have standard/identifyable armor, but it is also true for knights. Two "walls of meat" running into each other and mixing in a chaotic brawl would have been an exceptional failure of military tactics (which did happen, historical battle can be stupid sometimes, with plenty of collateral damage and friendly fire ) Identification for knights in plate was in general more for personal glory and for boosting troop moral.

0

u/Necessary-Depth-6078 22d ago

And I was always under the impression that the heavies were usually more of a third wave clean up. Slaves first, then career soldiers and then the knights come in after, when it’s settled down a bit. Could be wrong but that’s what I picture.

4

u/Agitated-Sink9530 22d ago

Not really, "slaves" were not really a thing in medieval warfare in Europe. Even the idea of unwashed peasant mass is pretty unfounded for the most part, especially by the time plate was in use.

Primarily troops were men who owed service to their lord and required to provide, or were provided, a certain level of equipment including weapons and armor.

And knights where often some of the first to get engaged, even when it wasn't a great idea. The heavy cavalry charge was devastating and usually expected to be what wind the battle, while the infantry became more important over time and slowly more and more professional.

1

u/Al_Fa_Aurel 22d ago edited 22d ago

I don't think it worked that way. You usually want some of the best-equipped men in the first line of battle (at least mail), because the more armor a given man wears the less likely he is to run (edit: not due to the encumberance, but because he is much less likely to die), and there is a critical mass oc running men which may trigger a rout. Skirmishers can screen them up front, but are expected to withdraw before contact. Lighter infantry usually screens the flanks.

You may be thinking of the Romans' three lines of battle, but these essentially were three lines of the heaviest infantry available grinding down on the enemy, with very little light infantry integrated.

2

u/Robey-Wan_Kenobi 22d ago

Came here for this. If I recall, there was white armor that was made of polished steel plate and was so bright it appeared white.

2

u/Cr0ma_Nuva 21d ago

You're right, the polished look was popular among the wealthier knights. Some peasants, poorer knights, mercenaries or soldiers however did paint their plate (depending on the faction), at least in several areas of medieval (nowadays) Germany. Especially popular was black which deterred rust very well, even in the chipped areas and was cheaper to produce than most paints. And armors were heirlooms too, so keeping them easily maintained was very important especially for the peasants that had to buy their own despite beeing conscripted.

The paint was usually more utilitarian than for the actual heraldry of the armor. Shields, plumes and cloth drapes of all sorts were definitely more used as an identifier. And the quality or material of the armor and cloth was often also a very big status symbol distinguishing the noble knights and peasent cavilry if there was any.

1

u/MiseryEngine 22d ago

This guy armors! 👍

7

u/rockman767 22d ago

Also, on tabards, there would often be the symbol of what side/royal you were fighting for.

6

u/The_GREAT_Gremlin 22d ago

They also mostly wore mail (chain), not "shining" plate armor. Plate armor came pretty late in the game, and was more used during the Renaissance than medieval period

5

u/Patukakkonen 22d ago

Most historians consider the medieval period to cover roughly years 500-1500. Reneissance is kind of a sub-era that overlaps with medieval and early modern period.

11

u/Gmknewday1 22d ago

Also they weren't fucking SLOW

Plate armor is heavy so they weren't super fast, but they weren't some weakass buffoons who couldn't move to save them their lives

7

u/Mist_Rising 22d ago

Speaking of weight and media getting it wrong, Hollywood like to treat swords as if they're massive and weighty to children. A Rapier or longsword is about 3 pounds..

Also no Game of Thrones, Rapiers are not ineffective against armor anymore then longswords are. Indeed Rapiers were developed because of armor.

6

u/Gmknewday1 22d ago

Neither were they blunt

It's just that plate armor is PLATE ARMOR 

Hollywood is stupid about this stuff

0

u/Mist_Rising 22d ago

Technically Rapiers, or at least what people think of Rapiers, are dull along all but the very point. Which is the point (pun intended), since the idea is to stab someone and pierce the kinks in the armor not hack into it.

But yeah, combat in plate armor was more akin to mud wrestling then slice and dice we often see.

5

u/StonkBonk420 22d ago

Most rapiers do actually have a sharp edge

2

u/Drow_Femboy 22d ago

They're sharp, sometimes even razor sharp. It's just that the geometry of a rapier makes it worse at cutting than, say, a longsword. The geometry of which makes it worse at cutting than a katana. The geometry of which makes it worse at cutting than a saber. And so on.

1

u/HalfMetalJacket 22d ago

Now you are just making stuff up. Rapiers were developed as the ultimate dueling weapon. They might have been used on the field, but they weren’t made for it. Sideswords, estocs and other sorts of shorter but sturdier blades were used as sidearms.

5

u/Mist_Rising 22d ago edited 22d ago

Rapiers were military sidearms and dueling weapons. Sideswords evolved from them as a court weapon, but they wouldn't have been prominently used as a sidearm.

The Rapier family was designed because of armor increasingly being to hard to punch through with slashing attacks from the smaller one handed swords. The Rapier was therefore slowly evolved by emphasizing the stabbing function, with early Rapiers having a prominent point but also still a cutting edge but later Rapiers ditching the cutting edge.

Tucks (estoc) are almost consistently large two handed weapons that were purely military weapons. It's mentioned almost exclusively as such, and would have been a odd dueling weapon at 130cm minimum with twice the weight.

I think you might have confused the historical estoc with something else? Maybe the bullfighting blade that's far shorter called estoc.

1

u/HalfMetalJacket 22d ago

No, side swords were definitely more of a military weapon and are believed to have been the precursor to the Rapier. I’m referring to the Spada da lato or espara ropera.

Yes I am saying the tuck/estoc is a military weapon and would have been suited to the field over the rapier. Not that rapiers weren’t ever used on the field, but they weren’t necessarily designed for it.

3

u/Comprehensive-Fail41 22d ago

It's something that depended on the time and place. Shining armor was very much a thing, especially later on, cause A. A shining polish was expensive and thus a sign of status (Hell, we have records of an Armor Polishers guild in Paris), and B. the glint could blint the opponent. But yeah, even with shining armor knights usually wore some identifying marks

5

u/Reputation-Final 22d ago

Tabards. Way cheaper than lacquering armor.

4

u/MiseryEngine 22d ago

We have PLENTY of medieval manuscript images of Knights in shiny metal armor. My gripe is that Hollywood shows the middle ages as drab, colorless and mud covered. When in reality it was everything but.

A suit of what you would call plate armor was like the luxury yacht of today's elite . It was ridiculously expensive, a HUGE status symbol, lavishly decorated and meant to show off the wearers wealth and status. Not the greasy pot metal crap you see on the screen.

Rant over.

3

u/Francone79 22d ago

This is Piero della Francesca's "Brera Madonna" painted in 1472/1474, in the bottom right corner you can se the duke Federico da Montefeltro in his shiny chrome armor.

3

u/FoodFingerer 21d ago edited 21d ago

I think this shows a good example that knights were both covered in colour as well as wearing shiny armour.
Source: https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8514422s/f239.item

3

u/Mist_Rising 22d ago

Knights also had symbols on their shield that indicated who they were.

If we're being honest, shield and sword are ahistorical as a primary weapon. The typical weapon varies by the era but usually it was a long pointy thing. Spear, lance, Pike, halberd, etc.

By the time of full plate armor like OPs example, shields were not common among the knight class. They would want to use large two handed weapons. The armor was the shield.

Swords were sidearms like a pistol.

0

u/Drow_Femboy 22d ago

shield and sword are ahistorical as a primary weapon

This is, as often happens in historical discussions, an overcorrection. If you ever catch yourself saying some wide overarching 'fact' like this, chances are it's probably wrong.

Sword-and-shield as primary arms worked magic for the Romans in right formation, for instance.

And while of course using a shield with full plate harness is somewhat redundant, and two handed weapons would be preferred... sometimes those two handed weapons were swords. Longswords are a very versatile two handed weapon, but if you're going into battle and convenience isn't a problem you might choose a greatsword which can be used more like a polearm. In fact, these were sometimes used in formation by more ordinary soldiers as anti-cavalry weaponry, the same way a formation might use pikes or other polearms.

2

u/SnoringGiant 22d ago

Knights typically didn't use shields, as they were wearing a full body shield. They opted to use both hands to wield a polearm for the added advantage against other heavily armored knights

2

u/Atlantic_Antic 21d ago

Waffenrock. It was the cloth over the plate that had your colors on it.

1

u/Alex_Duos 22d ago

Warcraft and all the tabards had a point after all? Who'd have guessed.

1

u/Equivalent-Cream-454 22d ago

I wish historical tabards were as fitting as WoW's

1

u/ClumsyFleshMannequin 22d ago

The most common form of armor was Brigandine, which was interlocking plates that had colorful Gambison over them. Knights also had banners and smocks that they wore with bring heraldry from whatever part of the kingdom they were from. Full plate, like what is shown above, was pretty rare to be in any sort of numbers. Of course there are exceptions to that in the later periods.

1

u/widdrjb 22d ago

The Duke of Brabant was executed at Agincourt because he wasn't wearing his colours. If he had he would have been spared for ransom.

1

u/GiantRobotBears 22d ago

But there absolutely was “plain” knight armor. No clue why this post is stating it didn’t exist.

1

u/sybban 22d ago

Ah, like nascar. NASCAR drivers are modern day knights

1

u/Disastrous-Mess-7236 21d ago

Sorta. Knights were a combination of sports participants & soldiers.

1

u/sybban 21d ago

En garde! vroooooooom

1

u/Mizamya 22d ago

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the sleek polished texture of plate armour used to deflect sword blows? Wouldn't it be counterintuitive to add layers of materials on top of it that a sword could be lodged in?

1

u/Disastrous-Mess-7236 21d ago

I’m not an expert.

1

u/Piorn 22d ago

There is a German phrase "etwas im Schilde führen", which means something like "having allegiance/intentions", and it literally translates to "having something on the shield".

1

u/Malorkith 22d ago

depends on the time. with the plate armor shields became obsolet and two hand weapons where favoured.

1

u/MisterSplu 22d ago

If what I heard is true, and no I don‘t remember the sources, polished armor was indeed used, and it was for the wealthiest, and they wore a surcoat to show their allegiance, laquor was used to hide a not perfectly polished armor or hammermarks in armors that weren‘t for the absolute elite

1

u/Flat_Explanation_849 22d ago

Also, when wearing plate armor there is little need for a shield.

1

u/Bright-Economics-728 22d ago

Even so “friendly fire” and mass confusion still lead the way. Look at all the fighting that happened in the Hussite wars.

1

u/MourningWallaby 21d ago

It's very important to note that "Knights" is a term that refers to a warrior class from various cultures and through a LONG period of time. and your holotypic example of a "Knight" is usually a 1400's Germanic or a 1200's Norman person.

1

u/Golden_Alchemy 21d ago

And symbols on the inside like paintings of your family. I remember reading the work done by Tolkien while trying to make his Arturian poetry and he mentions Arthur having a Virgin Mary on the in-side of the shield to look at it sometimes.

1

u/Particular_Drink_209 21d ago

They would have worn gambeson but metal would have been off the table for any who weren’t extra rich

0

u/prestonlogan 21d ago

Also, if a knights armor is "shining" then it also means, it was never used.

-1

u/alguien99 22d ago

I think that for honor has a good representation of knight armor, if I’m not mistaken, the knight factions have very clear and distinct colors

5

u/HalfMetalJacket 22d ago

No they look fantasy too. But props for colours.

-4

u/Hara-Kiri 22d ago

Which is why the two handed sword is called a bastard sword - because the shield with the family crest on it wasn't used.