Side tracking aside in the books all of the knights are wearing this kind of armour
Basically early plate bascinets or great helms ect, The men at arms are wearing similar kit or maybe just mail regardless there is none of that stupid samurai looking armor.
For a movie that did Armour a lot better watch "The King" on Netflix
Its not perfect but its a hell of a lot better looking imo.
Unrelated, but that picture reminds me of just how much I dislike how colorless modern movies are, and how they almost always make the medieval period look drab. Older movies like the Errol Flynn Robin Hood or the 1944 Henry V movie looked great.
This is what you're looking for. Late medieval\renaissance mass produced, partially standardized plate armor was a thing. But it had limits, and required certain types of large scale metalworking industry and technology for it. Without it, you get the stereotypical very expensive and rare plate armor made by individual blacksmiths for individual knights.
That's also about when armies started to discard heavy armour because gunpowder rendered it obsolete. Once the armour was gone it wouldn't be until part of the way through WWI that metal helmets became standard issue because ... shrapnel.
Unrelated, but that picture reminds me of just how much I dislike how colorless modern movies are, and how they almost always make the medieval period look drab. Older movies like the Errol Flynn Robin Hood or the 1944 Henry V movie looked great.
Because they're also obsessed with darker and edgier/bleak grimderp.
Real is Brown is a meme for a reason but I personally find it's not that real is brown, it's that the current crop of creators think real is bleak and pick a suitably brown-and-grey color palette to match their bleak outlook.
They go for that colour as well, probably because they have quite a warped understanding/misunderstanding of the Middle Ages. If you survived infancy, life could be quite tolerable in a world of community, king, and festivals.
They go for that colour as well, probably because they have quite a warped understanding/misunderstanding of the Middle Ages. If you survived infancy, life could be quite tolerable in a world of community, king, and festivals.
Real question here. If feudalism was as utopian as lot of non-americans seem to betray it as, what caused it to go gangrenous and ultimately die/go extinct? Why isn't it still the primary form of government? That's something that's always bugged me.
Real question here. If feudalism was as utopian as lot of non-americans seem to betray it as, what caused it to go gangrenous and ultimately die/go extinct? Why isn't it still the primary form of government? That's something that's always bugged me.
Because no one ever said the Middle Ages were a utopia. The argument has always been that it was a far more sophisticated and advanced time than it was given credit for, not an era of naked barbarism and ignorance between the Fall of Rome and the Enlightenment.
Because no one ever said the Middle Ages were a utopia. The argument has always been that it was a far more sophisticated and advanced time than it was given credit for, not an era of naked barbarism and ignorance between the Fall of Rome and the Enlightenment.
Because no one ever said the Middle Ages were a utopia. The argument has always been that it was a far more sophisticated and advanced time than it was given credit for, not an era of naked barbarism and ignorance between the Fall of Rome and the Enlightenment.
The more sophisticated and advanced argument rings true.
The Romans, known for being excellent engineers, had no answer for a Viking longship and would have gone WTF? when presented with a three-masted cannon armed caravel or carrack not much larger than 6-7 parking spaces.
Reneissance.People who wanted go back to Rome - and absolute monarchs.They succed,and was replaced by rich oligarchs who rule to our days.
And now,they rule as corporations in neo feudalism - but without any good sides of it,only bad ones.
Firstly, bear in mind some form of monarchy was basically the most common and successful government for tens of thousands of years. The current crop of governments could very easily be a brief blip historically compared to the incredible run monarchy had.
Monarchy is a very successful system where communications are poor. The monarch tends to act as high general, high judge, and in some cases high priest. The King was responsible to reigning in abusive nobles and provided the last resort for the peasantry to request relief from injustice. The King lead forces in battle and was generally expected to be able to fight himself. The King, even if not a priestly figure outright, generally had a significant role in religious services, making shows of piety, and being a moral center.
Note that there's some significant holdovers even into modern systems, the US President, f'rex, has the right to grant pardons (high judge) and is the Commander of all armed forces (high general). There's also a significant expectation (generally a disappointed one) that the President will be of good moral character.
Modern communications negate much of that, however. When a case is dubious it becomes known immediately to the people and it's tried in the court of public opinion, there's no expectation that the President of the United States needs to personally investigate and hand out pardons if injustice is done in the courts. When there's combat the President has no expectation of leading forces or fighting, he transmits his orders via radio from his office instead. And as for moral character... that increasingly became a matter of political scheming and endless mud-slinging campaigns rather than anything to do with true morals. In no small part, that too was a result of mass communications making it easier to lay each other's faults bare to the public eye rather than allowing the monarch any privacy and dignity of office.
Firstly, bear in mind some form of monarchy was basically the most common and successful government for tens of thousands of years. The current crop of governments could very easily be a brief blip historically compared to the incredible run monarchy had.
Monarchy is a very successful system where communications are poor. The monarch tends to act as high general, high judge, and in some cases high priest. The King was responsible to reigning in abusive nobles and provided the last resort for the peasantry to request relief from injustice. The King lead forces in battle and was generally expected to be able to fight himself. The King, even if not a priestly figure outright, generally had a significant role in religious services, making shows of piety, and being a moral center.
Note that there's some significant holdovers even into modern systems, the US President, f'rex, has the right to grant pardons (high judge) and is the Commander of all armed forces (high general). There's also a significant expectation (generally a disappointed one) that the President will be of good moral character.
Modern communications negate much of that, however. When a case is dubious it becomes known immediately to the people and it's tried in the court of public opinion, there's no expectation that the President of the United States needs to personally investigate and hand out pardons if injustice is done in the courts. When there's combat the President has no expectation of leading forces or fighting, he transmits his orders via radio from his office instead. And as for moral character... that increasingly became a matter of political scheming and endless mud-slinging campaigns rather than anything to do with true morals. In no small part, that too was a result of mass communications making it easier to lay each other's faults bare to the public eye rather than allowing the monarch any privacy and dignity of office.
That's about the most in-depth "everything laid to bare" explanation that I have gotten regarding this thank you I would ask more questions but I'm already off topic. Maybe another thread.
Oh but they did and we have plenty of evidence to prove so. Plate armour was not rare past 1400. Not only would knights have it but so would plenty of mercenaries which made up the bulk of armies in that era but so did their men at arms.
Anyways upon further thought I think the biggest issue is that after around 1440 armor itself didn't have a lot of color generally aside from Brigandines and the color would be solely on the banners.
Oh but they did and we have plenty of evidence to prove so. Plate armour was not rare past 1400. Not only would knights have it but so would plenty of mercenaries which made up the bulk of armies in that era but so did their men at arms.
Anyways upon further thought I think the biggest issue is that after around 1440 armor itself didn't have a lot of color generally aside from Brigandines and the color would be solely on the banners.
Yes,it was matter of money.And it become relatively cheap after that - for example,during 1410 Grunwald battle with Teutonic knights maybe 10% of combatants/including Lithuanians,who almost do not have them/ had full plate,when in 1466 when we win 13-year war almost every combatant had it.
It's worth noting that often even the armor was painted, sometimes gilded. Medieval cultures in general seemed to like garish color and they took a paintbrush to everything if they couldn't drape it in embroider brightly-dyed cloth (They did that to metal armor too). There's always the caveat that "Medieval" covers dozens of cultures across hundreds of years of course so there will be exceptions to anything.
And since we're derailing again, the Army of Hell in the Salvation War. Granted that story was dreck anyway and one of the most extreme versions of HFY I've ever seen but still. The demons use no tactics beyond "Charge," refuse to use cover, think flanking is dishonorable, are equipped with bronze weapons, and decided to invade modern-day earth using a portal they can't turn back off if anything goes wrong.
It's worth noting that often even the armor was painted, sometimes gilded. Medieval cultures in general seemed to like garish color and they took a paintbrush to everything if they couldn't drape it in embroider brightly-dyed cloth (They did that to metal armor too). There's always the caveat that "Medieval" covers dozens of cultures across hundreds of years of course so there will be exceptions to anything.
And since we're derailing again, the Army of Hell in the Salvation War. Granted that story was dreck anyway and one of the most extreme versions of HFY I've ever seen but still. The demons use no tactics beyond "Charge," refuse to use cover, think flanking is dishonorable, are equipped with bronze weapons, and decided to invade modern-day earth using a portal they can't turn back off if anything goes wrong.
If they were real demons/not possible to kill etc/ it would still do not matter.I remember some old comics /well,20 years ago or so/ where Hell invade ,get schoot,and laugh after massacring soldiers.
Because they're also obsessed with darker and edgier/bleak grimderp.
Real is Brown is a meme for a reason but I personally find it's not that real is brown, it's that the current crop of creators think real is bleak and pick a suitably brown-and-grey color palette to match their bleak outlook.
While intentional, the army of Rats, Bats, and Vats is extremely terrible. The colony decided to base itself on free-market principles and made the government a corporation where 1 share = 1 vote leading to a massive imbalance where the rich have even more political power than they do in most kleptocratic democracies. It shows in how they fight.
Due to slow shields that work a bit similar to Dune ones (except no laser issues), bullets are useless and fights are mostly at melee. When two slow shields touch each other, they combine and form a mutual bubble so the fights come down to reflexes once the bubbles join. Mankind's being attacked by giant scorpions called the Magh who use a hard shield (no speed limit) to protect their gains, so basically if they capture territory, they shield it completely from attack and thus continually advance.
The thing is the human leadership is really stupid and greedy. They basically came up with the plan of using clones (vats) to fight so that no shareholder would be at risk and equip them with little better than a trench knife. To save money on growing full-sized humans they started cloning giant rats and large fruit bats to supplement their forces since the rats can just bite things and save the cost of a trench knife. Chip, the MC, steals a kitchen knife from his shareholder former employer's restaurant and it's so superior to the dollar store trench knives soldiers are issued it turns him into the Doom Slayer.
Their tactics are completely awful and they're more afraid of their own troops than the enemy, apparently counting on escaping... somewhere with their money if all is lost (The Khorozhet advisors are encouraging this and keep telling the shareholders that retreating and letting Magh claim the area with a hard shield is a brilliant tactic.).
Chip was able to inflict absolutely unholy casualties with basically a kitchen knife, a hogshead of alcohol, and a barely-functioning vineyard tractor he had to weld together. This basically all happened the moment he quit following orders. The leadership of the planet is just that incompetent.
It does lead to a pretty great moment in the sequel though...
Where idiots come to arrest and court-martial them for seizing back massive sections of territory when the general in charge ordered them to retreat and let the Magh claim the area, and now said general is offended because he looked stupid when they got better results from ignoring him.
Sergeant: "Uh, guys, you may not wanna do this."
MPs: "Oh please, we handle Vats like these guys all the time."
Sergeant: *Sweating Bullets* "You can manhandle a drunk and disarmed Vat on leave when there's five of you to one soldier. Now you're surrounded by thousand armed Vats who are sober and angry with ten thousand rats and bats supporting them, and you just told them all you're arresting their hero and plan to hang him."
Real question here. If feudalism was as utopian as lot of non-americans seem to betray it as, what caused it to go gangrenous and ultimately die/go extinct? Why isn't it still the primary form of government? That's something that's always bugged me.
First, nobody ever argued that it was utopia. Only that it was not a moustache-twirling-evil that modern (mostly American) media is portraying it as (see: A Song of Ice and Fire).
Second, all forms of government eventually go extinct. Feudalism appeared because conditions made it impossible to have a centralized state, and disappeared once centralized state became possible again. And it was centralized state which brought us the wonders of 30 Years War, genocides and so on.
Form of government does not become dominant based on how good it is, but on how practical it is. If an utterly evil, inherently genocidal government was the most practical form of government for today's conditions, then we would all be living under an utterly evil, inherently genocidal governments... wait a second. We already are.
Anyways upon further thought I think the biggest issue is that after around 1440 armor itself didn't have a lot of color generally aside from Brigandines and the color would be solely on the banners.
That is wrong. So-called "white" armor was often painted, even in 15th century. The reason why most armor we today have doesn't have painting is because Victorian "historians" considered it "wrong" and so scratched the paint off the every single piece of armor they could get their hands on - which naturally included all of the well preserved collection examples. And so today we think armor had no color.
THIS is what actual 15th century salet looked like:
That is wrong. So-called "white" armor was often painted, even in 15th century. The reason why most armor we today have doesn't have painting is because Victorian "historians" considered it "wrong" and so scratched the paint off the every single piece of armor they could get their hands on - which naturally included all of the well preserved collection examples. And so today we think armor had no color.
THIS is what actual 15th century salet looked like:
