Page 1 of 2
#1
I've been watching a lot of epic movies lately and I'm just wondering, why does armor in many movies doesn't do anything at all.

Arrows always penetrate it, swords always cut through it, seems like they don't do anything, unless it's about main hero or something.

I'm not talking about some futurustic epic movies, I'm more about medieval or "Lord of the rings"-likish.
#2
sharp arrows brah
Quote by slash11896
I picked up my guitar this morning and started playing next thing i know i cant stop playing In the key of A, the first letter or her name, I ended up recording a whole song in A.


Quote by WhiskeyFace
I like women with balls.
#4
I don't know about armor, but


Do you feel warm within your cage?

And have you figured out yet -


Life goes by?
Quote by Hydra150
There's a dick on Earth, too
It's you
#6
That's because armor was largely futile. A trained knight would still be able to kill you with a sword. It just gave the most protection available.
#8
Quote by vagelier
That's because armor was largely futile. A trained knight would still be able to kill you with a sword. It just gave the most protection available.


Yes, but it seems like that the armor only slows him down and doesn't offer any protection at all.

I understand it's a movie, but they could just make it a bit more realistic.
#9
It sounds like you have the reality aspect of renaissance fairs mixed up with the movie part of movies.

Armor was akin to a bullet proof vest. It'll protect you to a degree, but won't stop everything and doesn't make you invincible. If you had swords and arrows coming at you, you'd take any protection more than none too, even if it only helped a small bit.
Do you feel warm within your cage?

And have you figured out yet -


Life goes by?
Quote by Hydra150
There's a dick on Earth, too
It's you
#10
when you hit it with a plank
and it makes a load clank
that's armor.

it's resistant to swords
and it's worn by the lords
that's armor.

clanky and heavy
weighs as much as a Chevy
that's armor

if it makes a loud sound
when you walk all around
that's armor.
There's no such thing; there never was. Where I am going you cannot follow me now.
#11
Quote by Zeletros
Yes, but it seems like that the armor only slows him down and doesn't offer any protection at all.

I understand it's a movie, but they could just make it a bit more realistic.

It does offer some protection. For one, in playing knight tournaments they were absolutely necessary. Also, I can assume that armor could protect you from something like a derailed arrow or so. Sure, a well-aimed crossbow bolt or sword slash will kill you, but it's better to have some protection than nothing.
#12
Quote by theogonia777
when you hit it with a plank
and it makes a load clank
that's armor.

it's resistant to swords
and it's worn by the lords
that's armor.

clanky and heavy
weighs as much as a Chevy
that's armor

if it makes a loud sound
when you walk all around
that's armor.



Da-bum PSHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!! ZING!
Do you feel warm within your cage?

And have you figured out yet -


Life goes by?
Quote by Hydra150
There's a dick on Earth, too
It's you
#14
Simple answer - because light armor was only useful against glancing blows and heavy armor would make for a boring movie - more full-plated warriors died from exhaustion and heat stroke than from enemy weapons, unless cavalry with lances was involved (or firearms when they became available).
#15
Quote by vagelier
It does offer some protection. For one, in playing knight tournaments they were absolutely necessary. Also, I can assume that armor could protect you from something like a derailed arrow or so. Sure, a well-aimed crossbow bolt or sword slash will kill you, but it's better to have some protection than nothing.



I very well know of the benefits of armor, I studied medieval military with great interest.

This thread about how the armor in movies is rendered as totally useless.
#16
It's called a plot device. A deliberate violation of what would actually happen in order to further the point of a movie. It's a pretty simple concept.

P.S Kenny G plays the flute does he not?
#17
Quote by AJDrac
Simple answer - because light armor was only useful against glancing blows and heavy armor would make for a boring movie - more full-plated warriors died from exhaustion and heat stroke than from enemy weapons, unless cavalry with lances was involved (or firearms when they became available).

Not to mention that people with heavy armor were completely useless if they fell off their horses, because they couldn't stand up due to the weight of their armor.

EDIT: foot-soldiers wore lighter armor for the obvious reason of them having to walk around a lot.
#18
IT'S A MOTHER-F_CKING MOVIE, BRO!




Seriously. I don't see why there's any more explanation necessary. Movies aren't reality. Shocking, I know.
Do you feel warm within your cage?

And have you figured out yet -


Life goes by?
Quote by Hydra150
There's a dick on Earth, too
It's you
#20
Anybody who says 'light armor' and 'heavy armor' is talking out of experience from Oblivion or Dragonage.

I guess the best armor was reserved for THE JUGGERNAUT, BITCH
Catch me,
heal me,
Lift me back up to the Sun
I choose to live
#21
Quote by SG_dave
He's a sax man.


and a sax-y one as well.
What?! There's a clean channel on my amp?!

Quote by GoodOl'trashbag
omfg i totally forgot about that, you sir are jesus christ.
#22
Quote by Firenze
Anybody who says 'light armor' and 'heavy armor' is talking out of experience from Oblivion or Dragonage.

I guess the best armor was reserved for THE JUGGERNAUT, BITCH

No, I did tons of reports on the middle ages during school.

Foot soldiers usually wore, depending on their importance in the army, leather armor, chain mail or a mixture between leather and plate. Those big suits of armor you see in museums and such were for soldiers on horseback, due to their weight. They were literally heavy armor. Not that chain mail and leather/plate armor wasn't, it was just lighter.
#23
Medieval Arms and Armour: One of my specialties! Long post incoming.

Quote by CoreysMonster
Not to mention that people with heavy armor were completely useless if they fell off their horses, because they couldn't stand up due to the weight of their armor.

EDIT: foot-soldiers wore lighter armor for the obvious reason of them having to walk around a lot.


Completely untrue.

A proper fitted suit of full plate armour weighed about 45 lbs, which is around half the weight of some of the packs that modern soldiers carry. It was mobile, it was comfortable. People could do backflips and cartwheels in it.

The myth that it was so heavy that knights had to be lifted onto their horses with cranes is more of a Victorian invention. The only real downside to a suit of full plate (other than the horrendous expense) was the reduced awareness of your surroundings, with muffled hearing and narrow vision slits.

If it wasn't mobile it wouldn't have been used so much. Would you have paid for an expensive suit of armour if you couldn't get up off your back while wearing it?

In fact, chainmail hauberks were more uncomfortable and often heavier than full plate. Whereas the weight of plate was distributed evenly, the weight of the mail rested entirely on the shoulders.

A lot of the same misconceptions apply to weapons, particularly swords. In more recent times, people have gotten the impression that medieval swords were heavy and clumsy. This mostly came about due to the history of arms being researched by fencers used to their ridiculous, thin 'swords'. The medieval sword was a weapon of war, perfectly balanced, deadly, and lighter than people think. A single handed arming sword weighed in the region of 2lbs, while a two hand greatsword was more in the range of 4-5 lbs. Some confusion has been caused by later ceremonial versions of the same weapons which were only designed for show and so did not need to be so light or balanced.

Quote by vagelier
That's because armor was largely futile. A trained knight would still be able to kill you with a sword. It just gave the most protection available.


A late medieval suit of plate was very difficult to get through with a sword. The only real way it could be done was to pierce the gaps like the armpit or back of the knee which were often covered with mail, so even then it needed a strong thrust. The majority of knights of the late medieval period didn't use the traditional sword, rather they adopted weapons specifically suited for fighting opponents in plate. Notably, polearms, war hammers, flanged maces and estocs.

The most effective way of killing a man in armour was blunt force or piercing attacks. Slashing attacks like those of a swordsman weren't very effective. Blunt force was probably the best way, a hammer or mace wouldn't break through the armour, but the shockwaves of the hit would scramble the man wearing it.

The estoc was like a sword, but it had no cutting edge. Rather it had a much thicker, more rigid blade designed exclusively for stabbing attacks against armour.

Finally, the polearm was a very versatile weapon, typically combining all attack types. Blunt force from a hammer head, a blade for slashing and a spearpoint for stabbing.


---


On topic, I suppose armour seems useless in movies just because it's usually the heroes attacking. They have to defeat their enemies quickly, and it looks more impressive if those enemies are encased in plate.

Probably one of the most amusing examples is actually Star Wars. Look at all that futuristic armour that the stormtroopers wear. Yet does one of them ever actually survive a blaster shot?
#24
Quote by Confuse-a-Cat
*stuff*

goddammit, is everything I ever learned about anything completely untrue?

Everyone's always teaching me things here.
#26
Quote by CoreysMonster
goddammit, is everything I ever learned about anything completely untrue?

Everyone's always teaching me things here.


Well, you shouldn't rely on your elementary/middle/high school education for anything other than linguistics and math. Doubt everything else, and look it up yourself.

Then astonish the teacher with your not-too-hardly-fought-for knowledge and get bitches.
#27
Quote by Zeletros
All I can say,

Morning Star is the most bad-ass weapon.


that reminds of something. i hate it when people confuse medieval weaponry.
There's no such thing; there never was. Where I am going you cannot follow me now.
#28
Quote by theogonia777
that reminds of something. i hate it when people confuse medieval weaponry.



#29
Quote by Zeletros


no, i'm just saying, that annoys me. it's amazing how many people use those terms and get them wrong. people often use the term morning star incorrectly. also, people confuse maces and flails, and various polearms (glaive, halberd, partisan), for example.
There's no such thing; there never was. Where I am going you cannot follow me now.
#30
Quote by Confuse-a-Cat
Medieval Arms and Armour: One of my specialties! Long post incoming.



It's not often something truly worthwhile is posted in the Pit, but your post was excellent. Nicely done.
Do you feel warm within your cage?

And have you figured out yet -


Life goes by?
Quote by Hydra150
There's a dick on Earth, too
It's you
#32
Quote by Lord_Doku
Well, you shouldn't rely on your elementary/middle/high school education for anything other than linguistics and math. Doubt everything else, and look it up yourself.

Then astonish the teacher with your not-too-hardly-fought-for knowledge and get bitches.

You have made me realise one thing:

I need to go to start reading non-fiction books for fun again. I used to always be reading as a kid, and now I spend all my time working, doing uni work, practicing for uni or on the internet. Tomorrow, I'm going to check out the public library, get a card, and borrow some fucking books about science.
#33
Quote by CoreysMonster
You have made me realise one thing:

I need to go to start reading non-fiction books for fun again. I used to always be reading as a kid, and now I spend all my time working, doing uni work, practicing for uni or on the internet. Tomorrow, I'm going to check out the public library, get a card, and borrow some fucking books about science.


Read this, its cool
#34
Quote by theogonia777
no, i'm just saying, that annoys me. it's amazing how many people use those terms and get them wrong. people often use the term morning star incorrectly. also, people confuse maces and flails, and various polearms (glaive, halberd, partisan), for example.


Aren't morning stars and flails the same thing? A spiked ball on the end of a chain on the end of a handle?
dirtbag ballet by the bins down the alley
as i walk through the chalet of the shadow of death
everything that you've come to expect


#35
I was always under the impression that the Morning Star was affixed to a handle and no chain was present.
#36
Quote by goest
I was always under the impression that the Morning Star was affixed to a handle and no chain was present.


exactly. it's a mace-like handheld club with spikes. there were spiked flails, but those appeared a bit later. the terms are always confused though.
There's no such thing; there never was. Where I am going you cannot follow me now.
#37
Quote by Trowzaa
Aren't morning stars and flails the same thing? A spiked ball on the end of a chain on the end of a handle?



Oh aye, sorry I forgot.


The flail is badass, but a morning star is really awesome too.


Most blunt weapons, or huge axes, look so much more dangerous than swords
#38
Quote by Dirge Humani

Read this, its cool

based on the cover alone, that looks either really awesome, or really stupid.

I doubt any library near me carries it, but maybe I can have it ordered from the larger ones!
#39
Quote by Zeletros
Most blunt weapons, or huge axes, look so much more dangerous than swords

There's no such thing; there never was. Where I am going you cannot follow me now.
#40
Quote by theogonia777

Well I get Halberd and Bardiche mixed up, I blame RuneScape.
dirtbag ballet by the bins down the alley
as i walk through the chalet of the shadow of death
everything that you've come to expect


Page 1 of 2