>>672016 Yes, you would. Fancy armor was a way of establishing you were a person of note, and thus worth capturing and ransoming. This would make you far safer if your force routed and there was a pursuit.
It should be considered that a lot of armour was rather modular, so it wouldn't be uncommon for the same armour that was worn on the field to be outfitted with specialised protection for tournaments or other types of costume-pieces (e.g. special fancy but impractical sleeves) for society events.
>>672617 That's wrong. Extremely wealthy people could afford to bring decorative armour into battle. The picture OP posted is perfectly practical and reasonable to wear in combat. Yours however is not. It's fucking obnoxious how as soon as people see any armour that's not bland they scream "muh ceremonial" because it doesn't fit their Hollywood stereotype of bland grey plate from movies.
Firstly, if you're rich enough to afford a single set of 'such decorative' armor, you would be rich enough to afford several sets of armor.
That means that highly decorated examples of armor, like French and German made Swedish aristocratic armor of the 16th and 17th century would absolutely NOT have been worn to battle. Why? It wasn't of the common fashion, for one thing, and it would have been made for either tourneys or purely as a wearable piece of art. Probably the latter, considering Swedish aristocratic tourney armor of the same period was far more primitive than this.
There were finely engraved armors that would have been worn in relatively dangerous situations in the 16th century, but for people to state that you would just wear a highly decorated suit of armor into battle because it would be a waste of money not to is so naive and retarded. Again: if you're throwing money at expensive, decorative armor, you have the money for a more practical and fashionable set to wear amongst your soldiers.
>>674971 you are implying implications. >but for people to state that you would just wear a highly decorated suit of armor into battle because it would be a waste of money not to is so naive and retarded Who said this? I saw someone write that it makes sense thatrich people could afford decorative armor that was appropriate for battle.
Are you implying that armor with a more fancy design but that still held true to all the good fundamentals for solid armor was never made?
>>675013 >Who said this? >>673577 >Extremely wealthy people could afford to bring decorative armour into battle.
>Are you implying that armor with a more fancy design but that still held true to all the good fundamentals for solid armor was never made?
Uh no, I'm implying armor like pic related would never have been worn into battle because A) it was incongruous with the fashion, and B) the owner would have had several sets if he could afford such armor, and one far more practical to bring into battle.
There was SOMEWHAT decorative armor that was undoubtedly made to be worn in practical situations, but post-Maximilian combat armor was simply far more modest than post-Maximilian decorative armor.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.