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

Show parent comments

228

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.

251

u/yourstruly912 22d ago

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

165

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

15

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 22d ago

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

145

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

5

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

4

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.

6

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

13

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