Why Fantasy Armor is Unrealistic

Before you hit me with “realism in fantasy only means consistency“, consider that ancient and medieval people knew what they were doing and their armor looks the way it does for very important reasons. Here I will be taking a brief look at a few popular fantasy tropes and compare them to historical reality to show you why fantasy armor is impractical in real life.

LEATHER VIKING ARMOR VS HISTORICAL CHAINMAIL AND TEXTILES

real vikings versus fake TV vikings

We know boiled leather was used for the first “cuirasses”, which were extremely hard like a shell and worn over chainmail and gambeson to absorb blunt impact. Leather was also used for finer things such as the inside of gauntlets, arming shoes, sheaths and straps for connecting overlapping plates. Also, the Romans had the lorica, but, with all that out of the way, the amount of leather armor you see in the TV show Vikings and some epic fantasy is rather ridiculous. Just think of how many cows would need to be slaughtered in order to equip a large army with cap-a-pie leather armor. And the leather shown above isn’t even hardened!

Deciding how much leather armor medieval warriors wore in real life is a great debate among historians, especially because all the extant evidence reveals a much more sensible solution: textile armor like gambesons and padded jackets! Making leather was an arduous and expensive process in medieval times–still is today–and so to equip an entire army with leather armor would cost more and take more effort than to simply give them wool or linen armor, which frankly works better than unboiled leather at defending against weapons because of all the shock-absorbing padding.

historical viking armor versus hollywood bullshit

The whole world knows now that Vikings didn’t wear horned helmets, but now you see things even worse in popular media like threaded leather armbands and big fluffy shoulder pads. Why can’t we just accept that Vikings wore chainmail, because maille armor, in my tastes, looks way better than this fictional bullcrap anyway? And if a Scandinavian pirate couldn’t afford chainmail, you might see them simply wearing common fabric instead. Processed leather hides, however, were used in large quantities for coating the outside of Viking shields to prevent the wood from splitting. So to process hides for armor AND shield-coverings would take up more leather than what was freely available. And, well, I don’t know about you but I’d much rather have cows producing milk and bulls producing other cows than some stupid leather armbands, especially when a cheaper textile does a better job than leather in the first place! Now let’s move onto something even more unsensible in popular fantasy art.

SPIKED FANTASY PLATE ARMOR VS SMOOTH HISTORICAL PLATE ARMOR

In epic fantasy the “bad guy” is always easily distinguishable by his black spiky armor. Well, in reality deciding who’s “good” and who’s “bad” is a philosophical question without a scientific answer, but we won’t get into that. We’re going to talk about why IT’S INCREDIBLY MORONIC TO PUT SPIKES ON YOUR ARMOR! There’s a very, very good reason why historical armor was smooth and rounded. Just think of a tank in WWII. Would you want your tank to have countless niches and pockets for exploding shells to catch on and cause more damage? Or would you want your tank to be smooth so shells have a greater chance of glancing off and deflecting? Well, these same questions could be asked for medieval and ancient armor when it comes to arrows and sword strikes.

getting hooked by polearms with spikes on your armor

Why let a sword catch onto a spike on your helmet when it could glance off? Maybe you want spikes on your helmet because you intend to disarm your opponent or do a charging tackle with them. But consider the fact that axes and bills–even the quillons of a sword–would be able to hook onto your spikes and use them against you. It might be cool in fantasy to tackle some guy and impale him with your helmet at the same time, until you realize he’s wearing armor, too, and now you’ve just entered a grappling match. Maybe you’re fine with that because grappling is your strongpoint. Well, all your spikes and pointy places have just become handles for your opponent to hold onto, which leaves you with a huge disadvantage.

Now don’t get my intent twisted here. I think fantasy armor looks pretty badass sometimes and I can see why it’s so popular. But with that said I’d much rather give myself the advantage by having smooth, rounded armor so arrows are more prone to glance off and such weapons as fauchards and guisarms aren’t so easy to snag me. After all, swords were only sidearms and more often than not you’d be facing up against many bizarre polearms, most of them having hooks. Hell, even some vouges, halberds and glaives had a small hooking element on their backside, and don’t even get me started about crows’ beaks! Too late…

One historical technique with a crow’s beak or poleaxe was to hook the back of the knee to trip the opponent. It’s already bad enough that historical plate armor has besagews, rondels and couters, because these are what can get hooked by weapons in a fight. So just imagine how fun it would be for enemies to try hooking you if you had a load of spikes all over your armor. You’d be screwed! To see for yourself how these hooking techniques were used in plate armor, check out this video by Pursuing the Knightly Arts, and don’t forget to subscribe to their YouTube channel!

Thanks for reading, and stay tuned for a similar post about fantasy weapons.

 

 

Advertisements

4 Comments

  1. Hehe, those polearm plays look real cool!

    People are going to come and say, “Yeah, but fantasy should be given artistic licence, and fantasy armour is more exciting than boring real world stuff!” In which case we ought to remember that boring is not WHAT we write, but HOW we write. (Not the whole truth, but still a good yardstick.)

    Great article again, Timothy! Knew as soon as I saw it in my feed that I needed to click. 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

  2. I’m fully agreed on your point that simple padded tunics would have bern the most common armour for a mere foot soldier
    But I would like to challenge your argument that boiled leather would have been to arduous to have been mass-produced but chainmail wouldn’t.
    Keeping in mind that the most scandinavian soldiers would have been farmers, boiled leather would have been much easier to come by than chainmail.
    The findings we have in burial chambers are mostly of people of high standing who would have had the money to buy chainmail, but for a simple farmer, it would have been mostly out of his reach.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s