The Wheel is come full circle. - William Shakespeare
Common Misconceptions Around Armor
Over the years, many have been lead to believe false information on certain facts about armor, how it was used, and those who wore it. On this page, I'd like to clear a bit of that up! Believe it or not, when in full armor, you could properly go to the bathroom. You could also get on a horse, and it didn't make you terribly heavy either! An average set of medieval armor was only around 45 - 55 lbs! A lot of negatives that people tack to medieval armor are merely myths, the stuff was a lot more effective than its given credit for!
Yes, you can take bathroom breaks in armor!
I suppose the best way to answer the age old question of "how did armored folk use the toilet?" is simply that it depended on the lady or gentleman in question, and that removing the necessary bits of gear was quite possible. Was it worth the effort and easy? Well, once again, that really depends. If a soldier had some spare time on hand, and the instinct came-a-calling, they'd simply find a spot they liked and remove what they had to remove to do the deed. Once you had your armor on, you weren't bolted in for good, the stuff could certainly come off if you wanted to spend the time and effort to make it so. Despite this, there could very well have been instances where time wasn't plentiful and neither was patience, so in that case... Well... You get the idea.
A toppled knight is a flipped turtle? Nonsense!
Let's hypothesize for a moment that a knight has taken a rough blow from atop his noble steed, and he has fallen face first, belly flopping onto the rough and unforgiving ground with a clang. Surely, with all that heavy armor weighing him down, he's stuck, trapped, unable to get up due to the weight of his gear? Nope, brave sir knight would be able to stand back up (and actually get back on his horse if he felt like it) without a problem! As I've previously stated, a full suit of plate armor really only ends up at around 45-55 lbs, and most have sets of harnesses and straps build into the suit so that the weight of everything is evenly distributed around the body of the user. A knight in good shape could easily get back up, jump, sprint, and even climb overturned ladders like monkey bars!
"Knight" does not describe all armored soldiers.
"Hmmm... I'm looking for a word to describe a person wearing armor... Aha! Knight!" Wrong. Though it's true that knights mostly wore armor amidst combat, and they're excellent examples of armored soldiers, not all armored soldiers were knights. For a long time, Knighthood was earned by acts of valor or courage, and eventually knighthood could be bought. Noblemen, even if they're in combat, might not have been knights either. Historians suggest proper terms for armored soldiers who weren't knights to be "man-at-arms" or "man in armor".
LIGHTENING ROUND!
Though there still exists a plethora of misinformation on armor that I haven't even touched on, a lot of it can be summed up in brief sentences rather than full on paragraphs. So, for this section of the page, rather than making full, detailed divisions, I'll instead note the truths behind misconceptions in the form of a list!
- The idea of a "Knight in shining armor" is a bit of a misconception in itself. Though ceremonial armor was shiny, combat armor was mostly dark and black, damaged by warfare or crafted with
functionality in mind over cosmetics. Some did ride into battle in ceremonial armor, however!
- Men weren't the only armored combatants, there are plenty of records of armored women fighting alongside the men in various battles, and old female armor even exists as evidence!
- You didn't have to be immensely wealthy to own a suit of armor. Ornate and extreme armor that you find in museums was quite expensive, but saving up for a decent and combat effective set of armor wasn't unlike saving up for a cheap car today.
- Along with the misconception that armor is cumbersome and too heavy for ones own good, its thought by many that a man-at-arms would have to be hoisted by a crane to his horse. This is not correct, and the armor is light enough for one to mount their horse with full plate armor all on their own.
- The idea of a "Knight in shining armor" is a bit of a misconception in itself. Though ceremonial armor was shiny, combat armor was mostly dark and black, damaged by warfare or crafted with
functionality in mind over cosmetics. Some did ride into battle in ceremonial armor, however!
- Men weren't the only armored combatants, there are plenty of records of armored women fighting alongside the men in various battles, and old female armor even exists as evidence!
- You didn't have to be immensely wealthy to own a suit of armor. Ornate and extreme armor that you find in museums was quite expensive, but saving up for a decent and combat effective set of armor wasn't unlike saving up for a cheap car today.
- Along with the misconception that armor is cumbersome and too heavy for ones own good, its thought by many that a man-at-arms would have to be hoisted by a crane to his horse. This is not correct, and the armor is light enough for one to mount their horse with full plate armor all on their own.
Quote kinda make sense now? Yea? ... Maybe? Whatever, I thought it was witty. - The Brave and Noble Sir Mitch