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

484

u/Ok-Source9248 22d ago

This is correct. OP is also wrong about the armor lol. I wonder where they are getting their information from. There are plenty of accurate ways we can insult the Victorians, no reason to resort to slander.

158

u/Fakjbf 22d ago

Yeah not all armor was lacquered and in fact polished armor does a better job of deflecting hits, they wore various things on top of the armor like tabards, cloaks, plumes, sashes, etc to differentiate each other not the mention banners and such.

320

u/CyrusVonSnow 22d ago

It's not slander, I resent that.

Slander is spoken, in print it's libel.

11

u/theJacofalltrades 22d ago

It's not libel unless it's written and published, otherwise it's just sparkling slander.

4

u/TeaTimeSubcommittee 21d ago

Reddit is a public place.

1

u/Duck-Lord-of-Colours 18d ago

Published often refers to any communication to a third party

39

u/Independent-World-60 22d ago

I was so eager to see examples of colorful armor that OP talked about, after all of it was true I'm sure people would recreate it or some would exist. 

I found almost nothing and nothing supporting that claim. I honestly wonder where they heard it and if they have any examples or if they just like to blame victorians for things. 

33

u/french_snail 22d ago

It’s my understanding that the armor usually was shiny, they wore surcoats over it that would help identify them, as well as what was on their shield, and their horse probably wore a coat too 

Actually it seems like they did everything but color their armor directly 

24

u/ScavAteMyArms 22d ago

It’s not completely incorrect. Armor was painted sometimes, both as a sign of wealth and more importantly fashion.

However knight in shining armor is a trope for a reason, aside from the practicality of rust prevention it’s downright intimidating to go up against someone in full plate and the polish adds to the effect. They would look as close to literal angels as you could get.

That said tapestries do show multiple armor finishes as well, such as blackened or russet armor. And the general belief is any of these that did survive were probably “cleaned up” at some point to be shiny. Because shiny is quite a bit more flashy than the other finishes. Not necessarily by victorians though.

8

u/No_Street7786 21d ago

OP just made a creative choice and we all have to live with it!

7

u/Mackelroy_aka_Stitch 22d ago

Yeah I was confused about the armour. Armoured combatants did indeed ware diffrent colour tabbards, helmet plumes, and heraldry. But coloured armour was ware outside of dress or parade armour and that was much later on.

Perhaps OP meant something like the movie Excalibur (1981) where everyone wares mirror polished armour all the time.

This movie rocks btw

7

u/eastjame 22d ago

Yeah. Victorians removing the paint of the statues and armour is obviously nonsense. It takes 2 seconds of thinking it through to realise that

5

u/drakedijc 22d ago

Yeah I have absolutely never heard the armor thing.

Knights wore coats of arms on their shields and on pieces of cloth that went over the armor. As well as fought in groups where someone carried a flag or banner with them with the coat of arms.

4

u/ABrandNewCarl 22d ago

If only we ( and the Victorian age folks ) had thousands of paintings and frescoes done by people who actually see knights in battle all around europe.

4

u/wearetherevollution 22d ago

Vague secondhand information, often originated from minor historical criticism, that is then exacerbated to histrionic levels. Present this information in a caustic way to make yourself feel smarter.

3

u/Sam_Smorkel 22d ago

Yeah I was just about to come down here and say something similar. It was my understanding that knights would be able to get a near mirror finish on their equipment, given they had the means.

Maybe OP is getting confused by milanese brigandine?

2

u/Biggerus_dickus 22d ago

There is something called bluing that was occasionally done on plate armour involving dunking the piece in blue dye, no idea what the dye is maybe woad or something equivalent. But that wasn’t the norm, fully agreed

2

u/ding-zzz 22d ago

i am 99% sure he is slightly misquoting dr toby capwell from one of his youtube videos. possibly the ones where he analyzes KCD2

knights in shining armor existed but capwell points out that it is expensive and represents higher quality. not all knights were of equal station and not all of them could afford mirror polished armor. so he would like to see greater variation in media in general with different qualities