Did high-ranking knights wear such decorative armor into battle

Why would that armour not be used?

most armour was built to be used otherwise it'd be a huge fucking waste.

>>672055

>not being rich enough afford one set of decorated armor than can be worn when showing off for the nobles or at tourney
>getting my fancy armor damaged
>shiggy diggy

>>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.

>>672016
Yes.

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.

File: lvl63.png (345KB, 548x1061px) Image search: [Google]

345KB, 548x1061px

>>672016
I think it was kind of same thing with Runescape wilderness pking

I mean you could use heraldic kiteshield and breastplates but why to bother?? only if you have money, very rich & powerful in runescape you could risk losing such valuable item, instead you use others

there are many pkers and it is true of knights, some like to gamble, you win some you lose some it's all the same to me you fucking kid,

fuck all scammers though fuck 'em

>>672477
>spends fortune on fancy comission plates
>doesn't even wear it into combat

I bet your armour is so shitty it can be pierced by a rake. I mean, how can you tell otherwise?

File: Modo Antigo 2.jpg (99KB, 440x1200px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 440x1200px

>>672016
No.

But there was such a thing as dress armor, used in jousts and -weirdly later on- parties,

Pic related, a "Modo Antigo" (Antique Style) armor, popular whenever italian knights feel Romans n shit in a ball

>>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.

>>672608
>it was probably like video games

fuck off

File: Italian_-_Armor_for_the_Duke_of_Medina_Sidonia_-_Walters_51585.jpg (2MB, 1044x1799px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1044x1799px

You people are fucking retarded.

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?

File: Harnisch_1560.jpg (126KB, 330x464px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 330x464px

>>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.

>>673584
He has a point, though