It's kinda tragically hilarious to realize that both modern teen girls and medieval guys had similar worries and insecurities about their body image. Whether it's starving yourself because you're too fat or literally binding your stomach so no one can see your tummy.
Tournament armor was also a necessity since tournaments were also an important form of training for war. If you get injured in training, it reduces your effectiveness when you’re actually needed.
As much as the Kastenbrust style looks odd on the page, seeing a reproduction like Jess Finley's Kastenburst armor really sells how sick it would look in real life.
One of my buddies does a Kastenburst with gorgeous brass trim on the edges and it is gorgeous. When I saw it in person when we were both in harness, it was a sight to behold.
One of my buddies does a Kastenburst with gorgeous brass trim on the edges and it is gorgeous. When I saw it in person when we were both in harness, it was a sight to behold.
Oh! Finally, someone is explaining in a coherent and simple way what I've always tried to convey to my friends. I agree with your statement about fashion being discarded as it is linked in our culture with femininity, but something you may wish to explore in some future videos is how the "plain, not custom made, government issued" equipment has inspired some of our civilian fashion like the trench coat, or the OD jacket. Just to show that this process you are explaining in this video is something "eternal". PS: the link between metal creases and cloth pleating is very interesting, I never thought about it.
It's also very important to note that there was a tendency in Western cultures to move more towards asceticism in our fashion and outward appearance. At least where men were concerned. We began to see the highly decorated as being akin to ostentatious and decadent. Things to be mocked and avoided as our culture grew more and more focused on glorifying the "common man" over the upper classes. Culturally, there is this sense that unnecessarily gilding or "prettying" a practical object has some level of waste or foppery to it--style over substance. And we are taught to deride that, even when the stylish thing still retains practicality. For instance, one of the signs of a modern story protagonist being good is that he is humble and down to earth in both character and appearance. The good king will have a crown but it's not *too* big, pretty, or decorated. His clothes will be of good quality but not *too* flashy. The big, showy appearances are more common with antagonists, as a sign of their vanity, or greed, etc.
Sure, there are people who just keep their luxury sports cars in their garage and only drive them on private tracks, but then again there are many people who drive those very same cars on their daily commute. Same thing with armour. Showing off your status would probably also have saved your life if you got captured.
@ I knowwww I'm so excited by how many new folks found me through this video! It took me forever to write and compile sources and citations for, so I'm glad the effort is well-received. 🥰
the skirts of the Pavia armors are simply incredible. The 7 tapestries by bernard van orley depict the most incredible fashion in general during that crazy battle!
This topic I really like and enjoy, especially when images are added into the mix because for me (visual learner) it helps register information to add to what's being taught. Everything in this video was amazing and super engaging, great talker and I can't wait to see what else you've got in store!! ♥
As a college student who created a set of scaled armour, the image of it (which I showed at a demonstration for our History Club) has had quite an effect on people, especially because I was sure to keep it well shined and wear an embroidered burgundy tunic with it, rather than the rusty, drab, faded colours worn by many modern reenactors.
You mention that „not putting in an effort also sends a message“, which is totally true but at the same time, the dominant design trend of the past 200 years arguably has actually tended to extreme functionalism and minimalism, and this is not a coincidence, either. The bourgeois class very much intended to set themselves off from the flamboyance and ostentatiousness of the nobility and hence they created a style that was intentionally understated and auster; this then converged seamlessly into the functionalism of industrial design. That‘s why we got business suits, bowler hats, Biedermeier and Bauhaus. Of course there are always countertrends, but I would say that overall this is still more or less dominant, especially for the rich and powerful. Wealth is not openly displayed but in fact intentionally obfuscated. The intention is to look serious and practical. Arguably necessary for a ruling class that derives its existence from ideas of meritocracy. It‘s probably unsurprising that fashion of the past is then judged by this dominant standard.
Not entirely convinced that all fashion has always been that of the wealthy or entirely inspired by or aspiring to it. High fashion is not the only fashion or indeed the most important in most useful senses.
I've been involved in historical reenactment for 20+ years, and I'm quite impressed with your presentation, especially the links between textile fashion and armor.
One of the issues is that historians are not artist and can't fathom the concept of anything that doesn't immediately show practical function. I have the same opinion over how they often dismiss helmets with elaborate crests as "impractical". Visual appeal and intimidation are also part of the functionality of armor and even weapons. Many cultures throughout the history of the world have worn elaborate and even at times seemingly ostentatious armor and ornaments for various purposes. The idea that something with an artistic flair can only be for display is small minded and irresponsible.
Great video, was surprised to see the channel isn't big yet! I always thought armor was so much more expressive than a sword, great to see good commentary about it!
My favourite armour designs are the Byzantine one because of how it both used to identify the person's rank and a great call back to their Greco-Roman ancestor and you can also see Central Asia influence as well.
This video was a delight to watch. I love that you are developing RUclips specific content. I love your longer videos on other platforms and I think YT will be a good fit for these longer videos. Thank you so much for sharing your research and observations about armor and culture!
Fantastic video - I primarily try to use the same lens to examine military uniforms, so it's fascinating to see armour talked about in the same way. To push the timeline back a little, I've heard that Martijn Wijnhoven in his book European Mail Armour argues that the tailoring revolution in the late 14th century is reflected in mail armour of the time.
Soldiers in the late medieval/early modern period also wore the very best and most expensive clothes they had in war, again as a status thing. It isn’t enough to have your beautifully made plate harness, you throw on gold chains, flowing silk and velvet outerwear, and my fav, actual peacock feathers!
I'd go a step further and say that optimization towards a function will usually produce something beautiful even without embellishment. It's not design for utility/performance that tends to produce ugly designs, but design for mass production that does. This is also related to how often highly optimized designs trend towards organic-looking forms if not straight-up biomimicry and how we evolved our sense of aesthetics to draw us towards such things. Sure, we can take our sense of aesthetics to impractical extremes fairly often, but we also shouldn't forget that our innate sense of aesthetics is no accident, but rather something that evolved to help us survive.
I don’t think I’ve heard someone ever put into words the same love for armour as reflective of the human form as well as you have, amazing video, keep up the good work!
Thank you so much! It's one of my very favorite art forms for that unique mix of art, science, culture, and war -- so many layers of meaning to unpack in one object.
My passion with armour grew as I started to be aware of my own mortality and vulnerability in my twenties. I'm currently building my own set of plate armour to cover my soft, fleshy body with one of the toughest alloys on this planet. It's like evolution: developing a second skin to adapt to the dangers of life.
I love this video and the many points you make. Of course, you know about the experimental archaeology by Dr. Toby Capwell, Tod Toschini, Joe Gibbs, & al. a few years ago in their "The Myth of Agincourt" series, tested the powerful bows used by the English archers against reproduction breastplates and helmets, made as closely as possible to originals from 1415. The unadorned sloped armour withstood the arrows, breaking the myth that longbow archers alone defeated the French nobility just by their arrows. It also explains Kastenbrust, which was probably not flat, but gently sloped and rounded and only looks flat in illustrations. Dequitem and Dash Rendar both demonstrate that plain armour can handily withstand sword-strikes, arrow strikes. Fluted armour, as you commented, stiffens exactly the corrugated sheets do, and actually allows for lighter construction with thinner material, although those flutes are suprisingly shallow. Movies always show the heroes without helmets in battle, because it's a movie and we apparently need to see the actor's faces (except Iron Man), but on the Medieval world, they decorated their armour so you could see who was important from a distance. "A Stitch in Time - The Fabulous Battle Fashion of the Black Prince" clearly showed in the re-construction of The Black Prince's surcoat is how brilliant and striking it looked, he was highly visible and easily identifiable with his helmet on. Until the end of 19th Century and WWI, Generals on the battlefield wore ornate uniforms and had a standard-bearer, so the messengers could find and identify them. Decoration makes sense for purely practical uses.
Your channel will boom, you views and subs will go up very fast. This is very good content, needed and very well explained and accessibile. Amazing job! Saluti from the birthplace of sallets (my favourite helmet)
But also a lot of the visual impact of high fashion armour comes from the fact that it was functional. You would not impress a real knight by wearing fake armour even if it is super fancy.
I can't remember what game I was playing but some character said, "If there is beauty in destruction, then why not also in its delivery?" Definitely came to mind watching this. Wonderful stuff! I really enjoy your videos and hope to see more. I think Dr. Capwell was the first person I saw really stressing the same point you were making that it isn't enough the just keep you safe and move well, it has to be stylish while doing it.
Toby's gave a lecture on the Landsknecht armors during the pandemic, and I've been obsessed with the historical trend of "metal evoking cloth" ever since! A plain armor certainly could be "enough" to keep you safe -- but WHY NOT also look fabulous, when the only cost is to your wallet, not your efficacy as a combatant? :)
The quote of 4:17 goes hard. Amazing video though there is a missed opportunity to have different music between each chapter that represents the armor and fashion of time period, even tangentially. All around great video though!
Great video - I especially loved the discussion of fabric motifs and styles in 15th century armour. With regard to style and beauty being seen as taking away utility, I'd compare armour to cars and yachts. The common people make do with cheap mass-produced cars, some of which can be extremely fast or extremely practical at low price. However the cars of the extremely rich - the Lambos, Ferraris and Maseratis - have all that and _style_. Those cars look faster and meaner than anything I could buy, in much the same way I bet the landsknechts looked at Maximillian's armour and desperately wanted some of that.
Criminally underrated channel. My favourite example of armour emulating fashion, tho rather simple, are front closing corselets with fake button to look like peascod doublets, Corselet E 0002 bis in the Museum of Art and History Geneva for example. Also great pronunciation, hearing someone in the historical community say Landsknecht correctly is rare, do you speak German?
Thank you so much! I absolutely do not speak German, but I had a German friend gently inform me that I was previously pronouncing it a lot like "land snail" so I have tried to rectify the situation since!
I like how things change. For example. High heels, were originally developed, for men. Specifically, for Persian cavalry. They were, once upon a time not only an important part of a Persian Cavalryman's gear, but also a symbol of their position, status and masculinity... Now? Its totally reversed. Its a good example of how the meaning and use of an item of clothing can change radically over time.
"The highborn don the best costumes and get the best vantage points, whether at a ball or in battle." -Witcher 2 A criminaly underused quote. I think today you can see it the other way around. Mall ninjas and people wearing combat boots and camouflage all day very much do understand that you use fashion to construct a certain image of yourself and that military gear and civil fashion can be very much intertwined. I'd bet that someone who is knowledgeabel in both fields of fashion could demonstrate that the influence works both ways, even today.
It's important to understand that "best" is highly contextual. In the Middle Ages, knights were used in the frontlines far more than common soldiers, and vied with each other for the "honour of delivering the first blow". So what could today be considered by most to be a negative (being in the frontline of a battle), was in the value system of the aristocratic warrior culture of the Middle Ages considered a boon (well it is complex, since it was partially considered a boon due to how dangerous it was, therefore willfully putting yourself in such a hazardous position was prestigious; the prestige came from confronting the negative).
The armour of Wilhelm of Rogendorf, which you´ve shown here and claimed before as meant for battle, is in fact, according to the museum of Vienna, which has it in its inventory, meant for display. And no wonder. The design of the folds means it wears out the arms of the wearer, and instead of deflecting incoming blows and especially stabs, they either catch them, directing them towards the gaps in the articulation. Not a practical design for combat.
I have never claimed it was a field armor, but rather that it is a perfectly functional tournament armor -- and that tournament was a sport that required real protective equipment. I don't see the potential of the sleeves to catch incoming weapons as being a wholesale downside -- binding the opponent's weapon so that you may deliver your own blow is a foundational principle of combat of this period, so I could see this armor as potentially providing that function. Given the prevalence of haute pieces, which similarly provide a groove where weapons could potentially catch (particularly on the inside of the neck), I don't see that as a wholly persuasive critique. The Landsknecht armor at the Met also features a hoguine and closed cuisses defending both the front and back of the thigh, features which were exclusive to armors intended for courtly foot combat of the time. Some experimental archaeology may be in order to say more conclusively one way or another, if any of our modern smiths can replicate the mastery of Kolman Helmschmid.
Lol? There are no very much gaps. Beautiful practical armor and every slashes would just slip, and your spear also cannot get a hold to body and, while charge, aiming your spear to opponents arm is pretty stupid idea, cuz its very easy to miss your shot.
@@sunhorse9378 Considering that there are giant folds in the way, no, stabs would not slip. As for "while charge", note the lack of a lance rest, and, due to the design, lack of space in the armpit to properly couch a lance. As for aiming pikes and spears, have you ever held one? Fought against them? If you´re on horseback, you´re coming up against more than one. On foot, they get more than one shot at it, and where else is there to aim but the one part of the armor with an articulation pointed straight at you. Oh, and did I say that the Museum of Vienna, who this guy defended in 1529, says its ceremonial, not for combat?
Huge take on the current male experience. I was/am a metal T and cargos guy. It's easy. Not "wasting" time or effort, as you say. But one I started really putting effort into LARP clothing to evoke characters, especially my main Character- Maximilian Kittle, a Landsknecht. I have designed and commissioned or made many outfits of ever-increasing austentation. Then I've escalated his jewelry and grooming. Still haven't found anything in the modern world men's fashion language that I feel communicates anything about me in a fancy way. Alas, there is a dearth of cool and fancy menswear.
For most of history soldiers and military people were the peacocks of society. They were decorated with metal, feathers, plumes, headgear and uniforms often in bright colors, things that were not always available to society. For a long time you could at a glance pick out soldiers in their bright dress uniforms with polished buttons from a more drab crowd.
C'mon, Ellie. Go get your PhD and start a "From History to Wearable Art" department. The fluidity of this video shows just how hard you've worked to build your knowledge, and how equally hard you've worked to give it wearable form, then how hard you've worked to make it shareable and understandable, then to put it all together into a magnificent video. With tons of passion every step of the way. Sure, I love my Lorica garments for their look, fit and feel. But I also love knowing the multiple stories each piece embodies. The history, the artistic interpretation, the application to fabric, the construction of the clothing, the creation of a small business. Now I want "Making Of" videos for each and every piece! You are a wonderful storyteller, in word, video and fabric.
Well, a modern example of armour as fashion: Back when I was practicing medieval fencing (today it would be called HEMA) several people were in the process of assembling their armour (at the time it was mostly gauntlets that was the focus) and every time someone would get a new piece they would very much try to outdo everyone who already had that piece in ornamentation. So even in the early 2000's the fashion element of armour was alive. Also a thought on the concept of something being made to both be beautiful and functional. In Danish there is a word for that: Brugskunst (litterally "use art" or "art for use"), even if the meaning in daily use is more limited than the word implies, I like to use it in a more broad sense, so I would probably use the term for some of the armours (possibly all) depicted in this video.
Yes, when I was more active in HEMA a few years ago it was (and still is!) all the rage to paint your mask, collect patches on your fencing jacket, and so on. By contrast, I had an instructor who pretty sternly stuck to "fencing black" because he felt that ornamentation detracted from the discipline practice. Humans are always looking to express their individuality and outlook through fashion, we can't help it! I love the spirit behind "Brugskunst!" That's the reason why I buy the decorative version of everyday things -- I want to surround myself with beautiful objects that fill me with joy every time I use them.
It's funny how the masculine aesthetic has changed since the late medieval period to the point that late medieval male attire almost seems unisex to modern eyes. Despite its masculine context, there's hardly anything about the Maximilian suit that detracts from a feminine aesthetic, whereas t-shirts and blue jeans still come if male and female cuts. 08:53 The presence of fluting on the thighs but not on the calves was probably to emulate the look of slashed trousers and stockings.
The landsknect armor-imitating-puffed-sleeves has steel codpieces as well. Shame that wasn’t mentioned much. Peascod bellies were also emulated in armor.
Ah, I am loving both the video and the high level nerd-out in the comment section! I feel so at home. On flashy accoutrements not being historically a feminine trait, when Rostand has his character criticizing Cyrano by saying "... qui sort sans rubans, sans bouffettes, sans ganses !”, he is trash-talking him for not wearing enough ribbons.
I will add that there is actual parade armor that looks good but has little protective value. Brigandine vs faux brigandine is one example. Brigandine armor is plates riveted to the inside of cloth. However, during the later early modern era when guns made many if not most forms of armor useless, nations such as the Qing Dynasty created faux brigandine where they kept the elaborate clothing but removed the protective internal armor plates. This was basically used as parade armor.
Honestly I imagine the people who historically said "people wear their underlayers too toght >:(" is prolly just people who dont understand how to look good and that its really not that tight Like other tight fitting clothes like idk skinny jeans im sure its been said about them.
I have no doubt de Charny was just an older dude big mad about the newest fashion trends -- armor of his generation was definitely not as tight at the waist. That said, I also find it entirely plausible that people were making themselves uncomfortable or ill trying to attain the beauty standard of their time. You only need to look at the fillers, surgeries, supplements, and eating disorders of today to understand how people will struggle to be beautiful, hoping that it will grant them worthiness.
I just sent possibly final draft of my bachelors thesis about 16th century decorated armour to my supervisor professor, and then I found this video. Well, good job I say. But I really want to read the sources you based on. I was looking for texts about this so long, and i found... not enough.
@@sadreperphan “Fashion in Steel” by Stefan Krause discusses the Rogendorf armor and puffed and slashed style specifically. “The Last Knight” by Pierre Terjanian discusses Maximilian I and his patronage of armor as art and instrument of influence. But I confess I have mostly learned what I know from absorbing the informal online commentary of the experts. There’s a rather strong armor nerd community on Facebook that has a deep well of knowledge!
Aaaaand... Maybe you want to make a video about ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶m̶o̶s̶t̶ ̶s̶u̶p̶r̶e̶m̶e̶ ̶p̶l̶a̶t̶t̶n̶e̶r̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶1̶6̶t̶h̶ ̶c̶e̶n̶t̶u̶r̶y̶ ... Khm, I mean Desiderius Helmschmied? This guy was crazy, his works are very unique.
Beautiful armor was a display of wealth. It helped nobility stand out from the common men-at-arms. It helped soldiers identify and rally to their leaders and in a way helped preserve their lives. Someone clad in ornate plate would most likely be rich and thus be more valuable taken alive rather than killed because of the ransoms their families would pay for their release.
One more question, sorry 😅 Is there a name for the shoulder piece in 10:09 (the armor on the right side). I'm a fantasy writer and your videos are very helpful!
That's a tilt targe (or tilting targe, or targe for the tilt). "Tilt" refers to the sport of jousting; "targe" is a name for a smaller one-handed shield (which can be a little unspecific, because it also refers to those rounded shields from the Scottish highlands, but in this case refers to the sloped shields that were used in the joust). This special reinforcement is only ever on the left side, because that is the side that will be struck by the lance of your (presumably right-handed) opponent. The defense varies -- the Italians preferred a "grandguard," which is kinda like a pauldron on steroids which is more fitted to the body, while the Germans preferred the tilt targe, which as you can see is much more like a shield bolted to the armor rather than an integration into the form of the body.
@@princessfairytroll Happy to help, I (obviously) love nerding out about this stuff! Maybe I'll make an "armor vocabulary" video in the future to help identify more of these esoteric names for the fiddly bits. :)
New subscriber here, ah, great vid... Will say, the gold you gotta throw down for a suit of armor... i think thats the biggest factor in tellin ourselves it aint all that. like 2k at least for a non fitted set
There's this chronic issue of what's seen as essentially "girl history" being ignored. But topics like costume and culinary and art history are utterly indispensible to understanding manly topics like sweaty guys in armour clobbering each other. All of these things are, after all. profoundly interwoven into life. For example, Lizzie Collingham's "the taste of war" shows that food, food trends, and food concerns had a colossal impact on the second world war that's just criminal to overlook. Looking forward to your book! ;)
Nice video, both in terms of content and presentation! Glad that sometimes the almighty algoritm recommended something actually interesting, and showed that I am not the only person interested in both military history and fashion. 😁
Would you consider using captions in your videos? The automatic captions don't catch all of the words you use (I'm assuming because they're not common in modern vocabulary). I'd like to be able to look some of these things up but I have no idea how to spell them 😅
@@princessfairytroll I can go back and upload an SRT file for this one that is more accurate! It’s a good flag to make it more accessible, thank you. 🙂
regarding german gothic armor and especially the fluting, i think it's the other way around fluting was invented as means of pushing the stability of the armor to it's maximum and i do think that the clothes tried to emulate the look of said armor, not the other way around considering that owning a state of the art, top tier technology, armor would have cost the equivalent of several million dollars today it's more or less safe to assume that the armor set the style and not the clothes
@@JOhnDoe-nl4wj Doubtful. Pleated clothing predates fluted armor. The level of fluting we see in German Gothic is also a relatively local style - the Italians, for example, produce plainer armors at the same time. If fluting were a technological advancement that made armor strictly better, i would expect to see it widely adopted rather than stay a regional trend.
I am thinking the flat planes in the kastenbrust would have been easier to forge and shape. Flat sections are easier to form than symmetrical curves. Not say that was the reason. Just an observation.
Much of that armor made swords useless. Plate and chainmail was made to protect against blades. Swords and bladed edges are more effective against most unprotected areas, cloth, or padded wear. Many Swords were still considered side arms and not the main weapon.
I once argued with someone about the sex appeal of armor and they not only argued that things like the waspy waist were purely utilitarian but also that the only sex appeal during the time was in the eyes. I wish this video had existed then. I'm not an expert in armor nor the shifting historical norms but even I know that even if you have a dominant main focus there's going to be secondary things as well as deviants.
21st century men have a lot of difficulty grappling with the integration of beauty and masculinity, particularly in the United States. Our idea of male presentation is so tied up with the visual language of blue collar labor, industrialization, and modern warfare, that they assume all men ever have been exclusively concerned with utility and invisibility.
@lorica-clothing It's so bad that even plaid is made to be boring. Plaid should be a vibrantly bright colorful assault on the eyes but so much of it is: red and black; dark blue and black; dark green, stripe of red, hint of dark blue; and other such depressing color combinations.
It was also a display of differentiation. Elon Musk's iPhone is no better than mine - in that way modern tech is quite democratizing. But an unscratched, undamaged full set of tournament armor per season is an unbelievable expense, a moving symbol of resource and power. Literally worth a King's ransom.
Lovely video! Feel the need to note that modern and post-modern era men are themselves only considered as valued if dismissing esthetics and remaining utilitarian (consider the women's section of any and all clothing stores, vs the men's section), so I'd argue it's more contemporary society's expectations on men. A jab-for-a-jab, if you will ^^
@@lorica-clothing not sure about the context, but I totally agree ^^ Honestly, nice to see someone not pushing back on the idea that there are expectations and pressures on men too
@@lorica-clothing just realised my comment didn't have context either -- so I was referring to the closing remarks, just thought I might slip that in there
To back up your point, the justly famous 'Sigmund gothic' armour (A 62 KMW, Wien), widely considered the apex of the style, is made up of parts most of which show substantial damage, and had reached the end of their working life. More to come, when I (eventually) finish my massive paper about this armour. Concerning the hard edged 'Kastenbrust style'; I know of no attempt to find out how ballistically resistant the form would be. It is obvious, however, that landing a projectile 'normal' to such a surface would be just about impossible. I must say, alas, that I have yet to see a correct interpretation of the form; so far, they are all making fundamental shaping mistakes. The mad sleeves of the von Roggendorf and the superior example in the Met NYC have astonishing mobility, as a friend of mine (Scott Martin) witnessed. Dr. Pfaffenbichler demonstrated this to him by seizing the cuff and randomly pulling it around. Alas, he only got the tail end of this impromptu demonstration on videotape (yes, it was awhile ago). He said the sleeve moved in a marvelously fluid fashion.
I can't wait to read your paper on A62! Consider this gentle encouragement so that we may all feast our eyes on it (eventually). :) I have seen Mac's critiques of common mistakes in shaping the kastenbrust form in modern reproduction, mostly centered on how modern armorers tend to place the protrusion too high on the breastplate (chest-height when perhaps slightly below the waist might be closer to depictions); what else do you frequently observe?
@@lorica-clothing By putting it too high, it messes with the basic ergonomic interaction of the breastplate with the ribcage. Think of the Kastenbrust fitting around the maximum expansion of the ribcage if it is made correctly. Putting the point too high means it needs curvature on the underside that you don't see in the art, nor should you. I looked into 'Kastenbrust' construction at length in preparation for Ronald F. Maxwell's epic 'Joan of Arc' film (I was in charge of armour. Great pity the project crashed in pre-production due to Luc Besson's dreadful film), as I was going to put them on the Burgundians (earliest place you see them is in the Low Countries, not the HRE). I used to joke that one of these days I am going to write a paper called 'The Kastenbrust'; Ergonomic Triumph, Aesthetic Catastrophe'. 🙃
@ Fascinating, I didn’t realize the implications of the misplacement! Hopefully one day we’ll see someone really nail the shape, it seems “simple” enough to recognize when pointed out, if of course a trick to execute.
@@lorica-clothing Admittedly, even the boxiest had subtle convex curvatures where necessary; have a look at the German breastplate from that time in the Met NYC. A pity I can't post photos; the profile photo I have is VERY revealing, and you can see how the boxy ones would have been formed. 'The Prayer on the Shore' in the Turin-Milan Book of Hours and thought to be by either Jan or Hubert van Eyck is dated to about 1422 to 1425 shows some breastplates that are almost there; they show the almost flat planes but the corners are soft.
A thought: being recognized WAS an essential part of armor even back then. How are you going to tell that the dude totally covered in metal is your friend or foe? Modern soldiers also suffer from this when everyone is in camo. Armor was painted or had cloth attached to it, covered in heraldic colors (either yours or your lords') and decorated in other ways to aid this function. Details that were lost for the modern museum pieces through time. A king who you could recognize instantly by the gilding of his armor was a king you could see and pick apart from the crowd (there was no "snipers", the point of armor was that you had far less to worry about archers and penetrating top-grade armor is a lot harder than a lot of youtubers make it out to be). It is also important to understand that beauty and masculinity was just different in medieval Europe. Flamboyance was seen as masculine. Somber austerity, utilitarianism and denouncement of beauty was for monks (and peasents but that's another topic). To display wealth was to reinforce your authority (and these decorated armors were often worn by nobles who HAD authority) and reinforce your power. A bare metal soldier was seen as penniless straggler and likely a coward, while one decorated (in gear and out) was seen as successful, look, he has money to adorn himself! This seems strange to a modern viewer but the past is another country.
If you want to say fancy armour is not just for appearance you must show it stopping threats to life 1- the test of armour is not if you can move in it easily or have a good field of view if that were it people would where regular clothing and while movement and vision are still important THAT IS NOT WHAT ARMOUR IS FOR ! 2- The test of armour is will it stop an arrow from a long bow , will it stop a sword or spear thrust will it prevent crush injury from a 1kg 50cm long club swung at 30 degrees per second ? Armour must be able to stop significant threats to life and limb by a determined opponent or there is no reason to where it in the first place !
Sure. And the beautiful armors shown here were made of the same quality and weight of steel, offered the same coverage, and followed all the same essential design principles as their plainer counterparts.
@@lorica-clothing 1- a flat sheet of steel and a fluted sheet of steel will not have the same mass because you need more steel to make the flutes 2- a significant function of armour is to allow a weapons to slid over and off to limit energy transfer to the person being protected by it . Putting deep furrows in it tends to catch a sliding object allowing more energy to be transferred to both the armour and the person beneath making it easier to break the armour or knock the person down 3- if these were practical armour that was used in combat we would see minor dents that were still to deep to just pound back out and cuts that were still to deep to polish out . While we do occasionally see that but also vast amounts that show no signs of combat use ever indicating it was not used to protect individuals when they were needing protection, and this indication as to why they would compromise the design as they knew it would never face an enemy weapon
@@woltews 1. Fluting adds rigidity, the same principle as corrugated metal today. Given how many armors we see that were fluted, it obviously worked well enough (or not badly enough) to be maintained as a style over a century; but of course we see plainer styles like the Milanese, as well. Every design choice is a conversation among function, fashion, and cost. 2. I constantly see this "catching" critique and really haven't heard of any evidence to corroborate it, either among historical sources or friends who have fought in high-end reproduction armors. Flutes and other decorative grooves might offer more surfaces for weapons to "bite" than a completely smooth surface, but what threats are you imagining here? The highly ornate armors I discuss in the video, such as the Landsknecht examples, were likely used for courtly foot combat where crossbow bolts and lances were not on the menu, and polearms were often blunted for the sport. They only had to be designed to withstand the threats of the game, so comparing them to armor for the field is comparing a Bugatti La Voiture Noire to a Honda Odyssey. 3. You first have to consider that most of our modern museum examples have been heavily restored such that their current finish cannot necessarily be assumed to be original. Secondly, there are plenty of examples of high-end field and tournament armors that bear gouges and signs of wear, tear, and repair, notably KHM A60 for one. It's hardly "occasional."
1- I know that fluting adds some rigidity at the cost of extra weight but much of the fluting we se is not really going to be that effective ether being to shallow or way way to deep in the example of corrugated galvanized iron it is important to remember that that is never heat treated and has no temper unlike armour should have 2- look up shot trap in the context of modern armoured vehicles for a truly tragic example but this same principal will hold true for any armour when faced with high velocity hits as will happen when people are fighting for there lives they will hit as hard and as fast as they possibly can . 3- I guess this gets to the main point is armour for games really armour , we do not call football padding armour , we dont call a batters helmet armour , we cont call a jock strap armour . We dont generally call sporting equipment armour because nobody is really trying to kill each other but police security guards , military personnel ware armour because they might face deadly violence from armed opponents who most certainly do want to kill them(I know some brands incorporate the term armour but are extremely clear in there warnety information that the sporting equipment is not intended to protect against edged weapons , bullets or other deadly threats ) @@lorica-clothing
@@woltews 2- there's plenty of examples of "shot traps" in medieval armour. Just look at ridges in the lower cannon of a mid-XVth century Italian arm harness. At some point you don't want points sliding everywhere, you want them to stop. So that's a known issue in armour and they played deliberately with it. They knew what they were doing, their lives often depended on it. 3- decorated and fancy tournament armour that might not be optimized to stop a couched lance is not any less armour than a smooth sallet for war. It's still armour. People did die in tournaments as well, even when the aim was not to kill anyone and the weapons were blunt or had no tips. And when I say tournament, usually it means mass cavalry combat in an enclosed space. That's what a lot of these armours were for. Still brutal, still violent, but not war.
Something many people forget is that armor was *expensive.* When you pay that much for something you're gonna treat it less like PPE and more like your car. You want it to look nice and shiny, and shapely. No one wants a hoopty. Of course, the most common way to acquire armor in the middle ages wasn't to order it and have it fitted to you, but rather to inherit it from an older family member. Most families had "the family armor." So there were definitely people riding around in hoopties as well. The more things change the more they stay the same.
This is actually probably the opposite of how most wealthy people thought in the period. I mean the truly wealthy who could afford armor. A lord would commission an armor gilt with gold and a lot of fancy engraving, pontille or etching depending on the period, and then go fight in it. We're talking about something like buying a Ferrari and driving it in a demolition derby. One of the many fascinating things to know about medieval culture is that perception is everything. (arguably this is still true today). The point of this would be that if I am a lord wealthy enough to drive my Ferrari in a demolition race, that is a public demonstration of my wealth, that I can afford to trash a brand new Ferrari. What's even more astonishing to modern sensibilities is that in many cases, this lord would have commissioned the armor for one specific tournament, never to wear it again.
@firelock9080 well 1) armor isn't that fragile. Sure it'll get scratched and minorly dented, but it won't be destroyed in battle (even if YOU are). And wearing it in battle is the whole point--it's armor. You're not driving your Ferrari in a demolition derby, you're taking it out on the Autobahn. You'd be using that armor exactly for its intended purpose. You don't wear it about town unless you have a reason--it's 50+ pounds of steel. Secondly, armor was expensive, but not that expensive. By the early 15th century, which is when full-body plate armor emerges, most knights and men-at-arms (who were commoners) had access to plate harness. It just didn't all have gilding and tinning and fancy filework. Like I originally said, there were many different levels of expense for armor based on what the wearer had on hand/could afford. They weren't all Ferraris. Some were more of a Toyota Carolla.
The majority of armor and weapons historically were more likely than not treated as tools first, and art second. It can take a fair deal of punishment, and was meant to keep you alive. Only some people had enough money to buy so many harnesses that they could treat it like a luxury first and tool second.
I will naturally say that it is very correct that beautiful armour was worn and used in war. But I find your framing a bit strange, albeit I don't deny I might be misreading you; take this as an accentuation of your initial words. You obviously know what you're talking about. Beauty has not been more associated with femininity in the last 100 years than it was previously, why would you think that? Beauty has always been associated with femininity, deeply and intensely so. And I think it hardly sensible to discard the abundance of historical records we have of, say, clergy, pointing out how foppish and effeminate overly decorated noblemen could appear to their own contemporaries.
I plan to make a video about this topic in the future, but since the Great Male Renunciation in the late 18th century, male presentation has became largely drab, simple, and homogenous compared to the colorful and ostentatious costume of the past. By contrast womenswear continues to embrace color and variety (to say nothing of how beauty is commodified for women, and that pressure only seems to intensify over time versus the visual expectations placed on men, which one could argue have relaxed over time). There could be several explanations for this trend: the French Revolution creating a broad distaste for gaudy displays of wealth; industrialization and mass production resulting in necessarily more utilitarian clothing; and the changing visual language of war, as uniforms evolve to escape detection rather than intentionally gain notice as technology and tactics change over time. Since men perform far more blue collar and military work than women, our conception of what a man "should" look like may have evolved into one that is "practical" and "no-nonsense" where in the past active cultivation of beauty could suggest power, wealth, and influence when military dress was highly visible by necessity, and trendy fashion was not readily available to the masses.
@@lorica-clothing Very well, thanks for the extensive reply. I really think it was your phrasing that confused me - of course, beauty was *less associated with men* , you saying more with women threw me off, sorry - we're on the same page, then. My comment did actually initially contain a passage about how I would speak of a decline in aristocracy as central to this matter, but I didn't want to seem too nosy, so I cut it.
Nice video. Dont forget that wearers of fancy armour would be behind the 'front line' giving orders to their subordinates. The armour was to keep them alive if their bodyguards were over come.
@@peterbrooks9984 Not necessarily. The aristocracy was the warrior class for much of the Middle Ages - success in combat was how they achieved wealth and influence in the first place. It’s of course dependent on place and time, but it’s a very modern false assumption that the nobility did not fight.
Most of those armour wearers would be in the first line charging the enemy, actually. Their whole legitimacy was based on the fact that they were fighting.
A lot of “fancy armor” was worn by heavy cavalrymen such as knights and later gendarmes. The guys who charge directly into enemy formations while taking whatever projectiles come their way. The vast majority of those men were nobility. Even kings would take an active roll in combat for much of the medieval period and renaissance.
"They seek to deny the existence of the stomachs which god has given them"
Some things never change.
May we all come to accept the gift of the divine tummy
It's kinda tragically hilarious to realize that both modern teen girls and medieval guys had similar worries and insecurities about their body image. Whether it's starving yourself because you're too fat or literally binding your stomach so no one can see your tummy.
Tournament armor was also a necessity since tournaments were also an important form of training for war. If you get injured in training, it reduces your effectiveness when you’re actually needed.
As much as the Kastenbrust style looks odd on the page, seeing a reproduction like Jess Finley's Kastenburst armor really sells how sick it would look in real life.
Absolutely, some of the reproductions are simply magnificent!
Yupp. It’s the best.
@ You would know! 🥰
One of my buddies does a Kastenburst with gorgeous brass trim on the edges and it is gorgeous. When I saw it in person when we were both in harness, it was a sight to behold.
One of my buddies does a Kastenburst with gorgeous brass trim on the edges and it is gorgeous. When I saw it in person when we were both in harness, it was a sight to behold.
Finally a video I can link in arguments whenever someone says "this must've been used only ceremonial!"
Oh! Finally, someone is explaining in a coherent and simple way what I've always tried to convey to my friends. I agree with your statement about fashion being discarded as it is linked in our culture with femininity, but something you may wish to explore in some future videos is how the "plain, not custom made, government issued" equipment has inspired some of our civilian fashion like the trench coat, or the OD jacket. Just to show that this process you are explaining in this video is something "eternal". PS: the link between metal creases and cloth pleating is very interesting, I never thought about it.
It's also very important to note that there was a tendency in Western cultures to move more towards asceticism in our fashion and outward appearance. At least where men were concerned. We began to see the highly decorated as being akin to ostentatious and decadent. Things to be mocked and avoided as our culture grew more and more focused on glorifying the "common man" over the upper classes. Culturally, there is this sense that unnecessarily gilding or "prettying" a practical object has some level of waste or foppery to it--style over substance. And we are taught to deride that, even when the stylish thing still retains practicality.
For instance, one of the signs of a modern story protagonist being good is that he is humble and down to earth in both character and appearance. The good king will have a crown but it's not *too* big, pretty, or decorated. His clothes will be of good quality but not *too* flashy. The big, showy appearances are more common with antagonists, as a sign of their vanity, or greed, etc.
@@kilerog True, I want more protagonists that are fancy af and decked out to the nines
Sure, there are people who just keep their luxury sports cars in their garage and only drive them on private tracks, but then again there are many people who drive those very same cars on their daily commute. Same thing with armour. Showing off your status would probably also have saved your life if you got captured.
You’re telling me you only have 334 subscribers?!? I’m very glad RUclips decided to recommend me this excellently made video from your tiny channel. 💕
@@not_the_useless_cake856 Thank you so much! I’m just getting started 😊
@lorica-clothing I’ll be sure to keep up!
802 now! :D
@ I knowwww I'm so excited by how many new folks found me through this video! It took me forever to write and compile sources and citations for, so I'm glad the effort is well-received. 🥰
First video I've seen from you, I'm impressed. You bring a perspective to the discussion that is still largely missing. Only Toby talks about it too
This was randomly recommended to me but this is exactly the kind of rabbit hole I love going down on.
the skirts of the Pavia armors are simply incredible. The 7 tapestries by bernard van orley depict the most incredible fashion in general during that crazy battle!
This topic I really like and enjoy, especially when images are added into the mix because for me (visual learner) it helps register information to add to what's being taught. Everything in this video was amazing and super engaging, great talker and I can't wait to see what else you've got in store!! ♥
As a college student who created a set of scaled armour, the image of it (which I showed at a demonstration for our History Club) has had quite an effect on people, especially because I was sure to keep it well shined and wear an embroidered burgundy tunic with it, rather than the rusty, drab, faded colours worn by many modern reenactors.
You mention that „not putting in an effort also sends a message“, which is totally true but at the same time, the dominant design trend of the past 200 years arguably has actually tended to extreme functionalism and minimalism, and this is not a coincidence, either.
The bourgeois class very much intended to set themselves off from the flamboyance and ostentatiousness of the nobility and hence they created a style that was intentionally understated and auster; this then converged seamlessly into the functionalism of industrial design. That‘s why we got business suits, bowler hats, Biedermeier and Bauhaus. Of course there are always countertrends, but I would say that overall this is still more or less dominant, especially for the rich and powerful.
Wealth is not openly displayed but in fact intentionally obfuscated. The intention is to look serious and practical. Arguably necessary for a ruling class that derives its existence from ideas of meritocracy.
It‘s probably unsurprising that fashion of the past is then judged by this dominant standard.
Not entirely convinced that all fashion has always been that of the wealthy or entirely inspired by or aspiring to it. High fashion is not the only fashion or indeed the most important in most useful senses.
I've been involved in historical reenactment for 20+ years, and I'm quite impressed with your presentation, especially the links between textile fashion and armor.
Thank you so much! Everything I know I learned from scholars, reenactors, and armorers who have been at this a lot longer than I have. :)
One of the issues is that historians are not artist and can't fathom the concept of anything that doesn't immediately show practical function. I have the same opinion over how they often dismiss helmets with elaborate crests as "impractical". Visual appeal and intimidation are also part of the functionality of armor and even weapons. Many cultures throughout the history of the world have worn elaborate and even at times seemingly ostentatious armor and ornaments for various purposes. The idea that something with an artistic flair can only be for display is small minded and irresponsible.
Great video, was surprised to see the channel isn't big yet! I always thought armor was so much more expressive than a sword, great to see good commentary about it!
My favourite armour designs are the Byzantine one because of how it both used to identify the person's rank and a great call back to their Greco-Roman ancestor and you can also see Central Asia influence as well.
Bro big fan of your tiktoks. So cool to see you on RUclips now. These videos are really well made keep it up!
This video was a delight to watch. I love that you are developing RUclips specific content. I love your longer videos on other platforms and I think YT will be a good fit for these longer videos.
Thank you so much for sharing your research and observations about armor and culture!
Thank you so much! The longer videos are a bear to make, but I'm so glad you all are enjoying them! :)
Great video! Happy to have discovered this channel, and I loved the reference to Geoffroi de Charny
Amror was especially effective as a status symbol because of how labor intensive it was to create a suit of plate armor... So yeah armor was fashion!
Fantastic video - I primarily try to use the same lens to examine military uniforms, so it's fascinating to see armour talked about in the same way.
To push the timeline back a little, I've heard that Martijn Wijnhoven in his book European Mail Armour argues that the tailoring revolution in the late 14th century is reflected in mail armour of the time.
Soldiers in the late medieval/early modern period also wore the very best and most expensive clothes they had in war, again as a status thing. It isn’t enough to have your beautifully made plate harness, you throw on gold chains, flowing silk and velvet outerwear, and my fav, actual peacock feathers!
I'd go a step further and say that optimization towards a function will usually produce something beautiful even without embellishment. It's not design for utility/performance that tends to produce ugly designs, but design for mass production that does.
This is also related to how often highly optimized designs trend towards organic-looking forms if not straight-up biomimicry and how we evolved our sense of aesthetics to draw us towards such things.
Sure, we can take our sense of aesthetics to impractical extremes fairly often, but we also shouldn't forget that our innate sense of aesthetics is no accident, but rather something that evolved to help us survive.
Damn. I don't think I've ever seen such a knowledgeable deep dive on armor here on youtube before.
I don’t think I’ve heard someone ever put into words the same love for armour as reflective of the human form as well as you have, amazing video, keep up the good work!
Thank you so much! It's one of my very favorite art forms for that unique mix of art, science, culture, and war -- so many layers of meaning to unpack in one object.
Fancy armor was plot-armor: If you looked rich, they were more likely to try and capture you alive for ransom.
My passion with armour grew as I started to be aware of my own mortality and vulnerability in my twenties. I'm currently building my own set of plate armour to cover my soft, fleshy body with one of the toughest alloys on this planet. It's like evolution: developing a second skin to adapt to the dangers of life.
I love this video and the many points you make.
Of course, you know about the experimental archaeology by Dr. Toby Capwell, Tod Toschini, Joe Gibbs, & al. a few years ago in their "The Myth of Agincourt" series, tested the powerful bows used by the English archers against reproduction breastplates and helmets, made as closely as possible to originals from 1415. The unadorned sloped armour withstood the arrows, breaking the myth that longbow archers alone defeated the French nobility just by their arrows. It also explains Kastenbrust, which was probably not flat, but gently sloped and rounded and only looks flat in illustrations.
Dequitem and Dash Rendar both demonstrate that plain armour can handily withstand sword-strikes, arrow strikes. Fluted armour, as you commented, stiffens exactly the corrugated sheets do, and actually allows for lighter construction with thinner material, although those flutes are suprisingly shallow.
Movies always show the heroes without helmets in battle, because it's a movie and we apparently need to see the actor's faces (except Iron Man), but on the Medieval world, they decorated their armour so you could see who was important from a distance. "A Stitch in Time - The Fabulous Battle Fashion of the Black Prince" clearly showed in the re-construction of The Black Prince's surcoat is how brilliant and striking it looked, he was highly visible and easily identifiable with his helmet on. Until the end of 19th Century and WWI, Generals on the battlefield wore ornate uniforms and had a standard-bearer, so the messengers could find and identify them. Decoration makes sense for purely practical uses.
Your channel will boom, you views and subs will go up very fast. This is very good content, needed and very well explained and accessibile. Amazing job! Saluti from the birthplace of sallets (my favourite helmet)
But also a lot of the visual impact of high fashion armour comes from the fact that it was functional. You would not impress a real knight by wearing fake armour even if it is super fancy.
This was very well researched and informative. Good luck with your channel!
that little medieval fashion roast of people trying to look too skinny around the waist was hilarious.
I can't remember what game I was playing but some character said, "If there is beauty in destruction, then why not also in its delivery?" Definitely came to mind watching this. Wonderful stuff! I really enjoy your videos and hope to see more. I think Dr. Capwell was the first person I saw really stressing the same point you were making that it isn't enough the just keep you safe and move well, it has to be stylish while doing it.
Toby's gave a lecture on the Landsknecht armors during the pandemic, and I've been obsessed with the historical trend of "metal evoking cloth" ever since!
A plain armor certainly could be "enough" to keep you safe -- but WHY NOT also look fabulous, when the only cost is to your wallet, not your efficacy as a combatant? :)
Wow super high production value! A well written script well delivered.
One of my favorite sculptures is the Augustus of prima porta it shows the emperor resplendent in military uniform it really exudes power
THANK YOU. The impact of fashion on armor design is so often dismissed.
The quote of 4:17 goes hard. Amazing video though there is a missed opportunity to have different music between each chapter that represents the armor and fashion of time period, even tangentially. All around great video though!
Great video - I especially loved the discussion of fabric motifs and styles in 15th century armour.
With regard to style and beauty being seen as taking away utility, I'd compare armour to cars and yachts. The common people make do with cheap mass-produced cars, some of which can be extremely fast or extremely practical at low price. However the cars of the extremely rich - the Lambos, Ferraris and Maseratis - have all that and _style_. Those cars look faster and meaner than anything I could buy, in much the same way I bet the landsknechts looked at Maximillian's armour and desperately wanted some of that.
Criminally underrated channel. My favourite example of armour emulating fashion, tho rather simple, are front closing corselets with fake button to look like peascod doublets, Corselet E 0002 bis in the Museum of Art and History Geneva for example. Also great pronunciation, hearing someone in the historical community say Landsknecht correctly is rare, do you speak German?
Thank you so much! I absolutely do not speak German, but I had a German friend gently inform me that I was previously pronouncing it a lot like "land snail" so I have tried to rectify the situation since!
I like how things change.
For example. High heels, were originally developed, for men. Specifically, for Persian cavalry. They were, once upon a time not only an important part of a Persian Cavalryman's gear, but also a symbol of their position, status and masculinity...
Now? Its totally reversed.
Its a good example of how the meaning and use of an item of clothing can change radically over time.
"The highborn don the best costumes and get the best vantage points, whether at a ball or in battle."
-Witcher 2
A criminaly underused quote.
I think today you can see it the other way around. Mall ninjas and people wearing combat boots and camouflage all day very much do understand that you use fashion to construct a certain image of yourself and that military gear and civil fashion can be very much intertwined.
I'd bet that someone who is knowledgeabel in both fields of fashion could demonstrate that the influence works both ways, even today.
It's important to understand that "best" is highly contextual. In the Middle Ages, knights were used in the frontlines far more than common soldiers, and vied with each other for the "honour of delivering the first blow". So what could today be considered by most to be a negative (being in the frontline of a battle), was in the value system of the aristocratic warrior culture of the Middle Ages considered a boon (well it is complex, since it was partially considered a boon due to how dangerous it was, therefore willfully putting yourself in such a hazardous position was prestigious; the prestige came from confronting the negative).
Great video! I have an absolute fascination for armour and weaponry especially of these periods.
The armour of Wilhelm of Rogendorf, which you´ve shown here and claimed before as meant for battle, is in fact, according to the museum of Vienna, which has it in its inventory, meant for display.
And no wonder. The design of the folds means it wears out the arms of the wearer, and instead of deflecting incoming blows and especially stabs, they either catch them, directing them towards the gaps in the articulation. Not a practical design for combat.
I have never claimed it was a field armor, but rather that it is a perfectly functional tournament armor -- and that tournament was a sport that required real protective equipment.
I don't see the potential of the sleeves to catch incoming weapons as being a wholesale downside -- binding the opponent's weapon so that you may deliver your own blow is a foundational principle of combat of this period, so I could see this armor as potentially providing that function. Given the prevalence of haute pieces, which similarly provide a groove where weapons could potentially catch (particularly on the inside of the neck), I don't see that as a wholly persuasive critique. The Landsknecht armor at the Met also features a hoguine and closed cuisses defending both the front and back of the thigh, features which were exclusive to armors intended for courtly foot combat of the time.
Some experimental archaeology may be in order to say more conclusively one way or another, if any of our modern smiths can replicate the mastery of Kolman Helmschmid.
Lol? There are no very much gaps. Beautiful practical armor and every slashes would just slip, and your spear also cannot get a hold to body and, while charge, aiming your spear to opponents arm is pretty stupid idea, cuz its very easy to miss your shot.
@@sunhorse9378 Considering that there are giant folds in the way, no, stabs would not slip. As for "while charge", note the lack of a lance rest, and, due to the design, lack of space in the armpit to properly couch a lance.
As for aiming pikes and spears, have you ever held one? Fought against them? If you´re on horseback, you´re coming up against more than one. On foot, they get more than one shot at it, and where else is there to aim but the one part of the armor with an articulation pointed straight at you.
Oh, and did I say that the Museum of Vienna, who this guy defended in 1529, says its ceremonial, not for combat?
Stellar video. I appreciate the concise and detailed assessment of European armor in this snapshot of history, I learned a lot of new things.
@1:04 its because armies are equipped by the government rather than the individual.
Huge take on the current male experience. I was/am a metal T and cargos guy. It's easy. Not "wasting" time or effort, as you say. But one I started really putting effort into LARP clothing to evoke characters, especially my main Character- Maximilian Kittle, a Landsknecht. I have designed and commissioned or made many outfits of ever-increasing austentation. Then I've escalated his jewelry and grooming. Still haven't found anything in the modern world men's fashion language that I feel communicates anything about me in a fancy way. Alas, there is a dearth of cool and fancy menswear.
For most of history soldiers and military people were the peacocks of society. They were decorated with metal, feathers, plumes, headgear and uniforms often in bright colors, things that were not always available to society. For a long time you could at a glance pick out soldiers in their bright dress uniforms with polished buttons from a more drab crowd.
C'mon, Ellie. Go get your PhD and start a "From History to Wearable Art" department. The fluidity of this video shows just how hard you've worked to build your knowledge, and how equally hard you've worked to give it wearable form, then how hard you've worked to make it shareable and understandable, then to put it all together into a magnificent video. With tons of passion every step of the way.
Sure, I love my Lorica garments for their look, fit and feel. But I also love knowing the multiple stories each piece embodies. The history, the artistic interpretation, the application to fabric, the construction of the clothing, the creation of a small business.
Now I want "Making Of" videos for each and every piece! You are a wonderful storyteller, in word, video and fabric.
Thank you so much Bob, you're too kind! I definitely hope to document my process as I develop new garments :)
Before, men wore Maximillian. Now, men wear Carhartt.
Well, a modern example of armour as fashion: Back when I was practicing medieval fencing (today it would be called HEMA) several people were in the process of assembling their armour (at the time it was mostly gauntlets that was the focus) and every time someone would get a new piece they would very much try to outdo everyone who already had that piece in ornamentation. So even in the early 2000's the fashion element of armour was alive.
Also a thought on the concept of something being made to both be beautiful and functional. In Danish there is a word for that: Brugskunst (litterally "use art" or "art for use"), even if the meaning in daily use is more limited than the word implies, I like to use it in a more broad sense, so I would probably use the term for some of the armours (possibly all) depicted in this video.
Yes, when I was more active in HEMA a few years ago it was (and still is!) all the rage to paint your mask, collect patches on your fencing jacket, and so on. By contrast, I had an instructor who pretty sternly stuck to "fencing black" because he felt that ornamentation detracted from the discipline practice. Humans are always looking to express their individuality and outlook through fashion, we can't help it!
I love the spirit behind "Brugskunst!" That's the reason why I buy the decorative version of everyday things -- I want to surround myself with beautiful objects that fill me with joy every time I use them.
It's funny how the masculine aesthetic has changed since the late medieval period to the point that late medieval male attire almost seems unisex to modern eyes. Despite its masculine context, there's hardly anything about the Maximilian suit that detracts from a feminine aesthetic, whereas t-shirts and blue jeans still come if male and female cuts.
08:53 The presence of fluting on the thighs but not on the calves was probably to emulate the look of slashed trousers and stockings.
One aspect of the masculine aesthetic that stayed largely the same though is broad shoulders.
The landsknect armor-imitating-puffed-sleeves has steel codpieces as well. Shame that wasn’t mentioned much.
Peascod bellies were also emulated in armor.
Codpieces are utterly uninteresting to me, but you're welcome to admire them as deeply as you like on your own time.
Ah, I am loving both the video and the high level nerd-out in the comment section! I feel so at home.
On flashy accoutrements not being historically a feminine trait, when Rostand has his character criticizing Cyrano by saying "... qui sort sans rubans, sans bouffettes, sans ganses !”, he is trash-talking him for not wearing enough ribbons.
I will add that there is actual parade armor that looks good but has little protective value. Brigandine vs faux brigandine is one example. Brigandine armor is plates riveted to the inside of cloth. However, during the later early modern era when guns made many if not most forms of armor useless, nations such as the Qing Dynasty created faux brigandine where they kept the elaborate clothing but removed the protective internal armor plates. This was basically used as parade armor.
Well hello! Excellent video! Much like you, armor has always been what has attracted me to that period. I'd love a vid about brigandine!
Honestly I imagine the people who historically said "people wear their underlayers too toght >:(" is prolly just people who dont understand how to look good and that its really not that tight
Like other tight fitting clothes like idk skinny jeans im sure its been said about them.
I have no doubt de Charny was just an older dude big mad about the newest fashion trends -- armor of his generation was definitely not as tight at the waist. That said, I also find it entirely plausible that people were making themselves uncomfortable or ill trying to attain the beauty standard of their time. You only need to look at the fillers, surgeries, supplements, and eating disorders of today to understand how people will struggle to be beautiful, hoping that it will grant them worthiness.
Pov: your girlfriend explains why you shouldn't wear old jeans and worn out t-shirt on a visit to her parents in the only way you'll understand
Great video! I'm so happy someone expressed thoughts I've had about armor in such a clear and concise way
superb video
Just like musculata armors of antiquity
Looking good while killing and looking good while dying
is of prime importance
I just sent possibly final draft of my bachelors thesis about 16th century decorated armour to my supervisor professor, and then I found this video. Well, good job I say.
But I really want to read the sources you based on. I was looking for texts about this so long, and i found... not enough.
@@sadreperphan “Fashion in Steel” by Stefan Krause discusses the Rogendorf armor and puffed and slashed style specifically. “The Last Knight” by Pierre Terjanian discusses Maximilian I and his patronage of armor as art and instrument of influence. But I confess I have mostly learned what I know from absorbing the informal online commentary of the experts. There’s a rather strong armor nerd community on Facebook that has a deep well of knowledge!
Aaaaand... Maybe you want to make a video about ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶m̶o̶s̶t̶ ̶s̶u̶p̶r̶e̶m̶e̶ ̶p̶l̶a̶t̶t̶n̶e̶r̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶1̶6̶t̶h̶ ̶c̶e̶n̶t̶u̶r̶y̶ ... Khm, I mean Desiderius Helmschmied?
This guy was crazy, his works are very unique.
@@lorica-clothing Thanks, so much. I just started joining to fb groups and looking for it
Beautiful armor was a display of wealth. It helped nobility stand out from the common men-at-arms. It helped soldiers identify and rally to their leaders and in a way helped preserve their lives. Someone clad in ornate plate would most likely be rich and thus be more valuable taken alive rather than killed because of the ransoms their families would pay for their release.
One more question, sorry 😅
Is there a name for the shoulder piece in 10:09 (the armor on the right side).
I'm a fantasy writer and your videos are very helpful!
That's a tilt targe (or tilting targe, or targe for the tilt). "Tilt" refers to the sport of jousting; "targe" is a name for a smaller one-handed shield (which can be a little unspecific, because it also refers to those rounded shields from the Scottish highlands, but in this case refers to the sloped shields that were used in the joust). This special reinforcement is only ever on the left side, because that is the side that will be struck by the lance of your (presumably right-handed) opponent. The defense varies -- the Italians preferred a "grandguard," which is kinda like a pauldron on steroids which is more fitted to the body, while the Germans preferred the tilt targe, which as you can see is much more like a shield bolted to the armor rather than an integration into the form of the body.
@lorica-clothing that's awesome! Tysm for your detailed response 🙏🏼 I'm taking notes!
@@princessfairytroll Happy to help, I (obviously) love nerding out about this stuff! Maybe I'll make an "armor vocabulary" video in the future to help identify more of these esoteric names for the fiddly bits. :)
Craft my armor like one of your Gothic knights!
The algorithm has sent me a blessing this day! Instant sub.
New subscriber here, ah, great vid... Will say, the gold you gotta throw down for a suit of armor... i think thats the biggest factor in tellin ourselves it aint all that. like 2k at least for a non fitted set
There's this chronic issue of what's seen as essentially "girl history" being ignored. But topics like costume and culinary and art history are utterly indispensible to understanding manly topics like sweaty guys in armour clobbering each other.
All of these things are, after all. profoundly interwoven into life.
For example, Lizzie Collingham's "the taste of war" shows that food, food trends, and food concerns had a colossal impact on the second world war that's just criminal to overlook.
Looking forward to your book! ;)
Nice video, both in terms of content and presentation!
Glad that sometimes the almighty algoritm recommended something actually interesting, and showed that I am not the only person interested in both military history and fashion. 😁
Would you consider using captions in your videos? The automatic captions don't catch all of the words you use (I'm assuming because they're not common in modern vocabulary). I'd like to be able to look some of these things up but I have no idea how to spell them 😅
@@princessfairytroll I can go back and upload an SRT file for this one that is more accurate! It’s a good flag to make it more accessible, thank you. 🙂
That would be amazing thank you so much @@lorica-clothing 💕
@@princessfairytroll Just added, I hope it's helpful! :)
@@lorica-clothing I really appreciate it!!! 💕
regarding german gothic armor and especially the fluting, i think it's the other way around
fluting was invented as means of pushing the stability of the armor to it's maximum
and i do think that the clothes tried to emulate the look of said armor, not the other way around
considering that owning a state of the art, top tier technology, armor would have cost the equivalent of several million dollars today
it's more or less safe to assume that the armor set the style and not the clothes
@@JOhnDoe-nl4wj Doubtful. Pleated clothing predates fluted armor. The level of fluting we see in German Gothic is also a relatively local style - the Italians, for example, produce plainer armors at the same time. If fluting were a technological advancement that made armor strictly better, i would expect to see it widely adopted rather than stay a regional trend.
I am thinking the flat planes in the kastenbrust would have been easier to forge and shape. Flat sections are easier to form than symmetrical curves. Not say that was the reason. Just an observation.
Much of that armor made swords useless. Plate and chainmail was made to protect against blades.
Swords and bladed edges are more effective against most unprotected areas, cloth, or padded wear.
Many Swords were still considered side arms and not the main weapon.
I once argued with someone about the sex appeal of armor and they not only argued that things like the waspy waist were purely utilitarian but also that the only sex appeal during the time was in the eyes.
I wish this video had existed then. I'm not an expert in armor nor the shifting historical norms but even I know that even if you have a dominant main focus there's going to be secondary things as well as deviants.
21st century men have a lot of difficulty grappling with the integration of beauty and masculinity, particularly in the United States. Our idea of male presentation is so tied up with the visual language of blue collar labor, industrialization, and modern warfare, that they assume all men ever have been exclusively concerned with utility and invisibility.
@lorica-clothing It's so bad that even plaid is made to be boring. Plaid should be a vibrantly bright colorful assault on the eyes but so much of it is: red and black; dark blue and black; dark green, stripe of red, hint of dark blue; and other such depressing color combinations.
It was also a display of differentiation. Elon Musk's iPhone is no better than mine - in that way modern tech is quite democratizing.
But an unscratched, undamaged full set of tournament armor per season is an unbelievable expense, a moving symbol of resource and power. Literally worth a King's ransom.
Happy to be your 1000th subscriber!
Thank you so much!! Happy to have you here!
WOW! This is amazing work and answers a ton of questions I had. Thank you.
Thank you so much! Let me know if any questions remain, I'd love to answer more of them!
@@lorica-clothing O! My followers and I have tons of English armour from the 15th century.
Lovely video! Feel the need to note that modern and post-modern era men are themselves only considered as valued if dismissing esthetics and remaining utilitarian (consider the women's section of any and all clothing stores, vs the men's section), so I'd argue it's more contemporary society's expectations on men. A jab-for-a-jab, if you will ^^
It's not a question of who is suffering more or less from societal expectations; sexism dampens the human experience for everyone.
@@lorica-clothing not sure about the context, but I totally agree ^^
Honestly, nice to see someone not pushing back on the idea that there are expectations and pressures on men too
@@lorica-clothing just realised my comment didn't have context either -- so I was referring to the closing remarks, just thought I might slip that in there
Damn, that was brilliant! Subscribing, and going to binge on armour for a bit.
these are some really interesting topics, and very well researched and considered. thanks you!
They're bespoke tailoring at it's finest.
A brilliant presentation 🌟
Toby Capwell liked this video 🐸
Me at 5:41: "Well there is this guy with this superb reproduction here in Germany." Me at 6:35: "Yeah, that's the guy." 😅
My Teutonic blood is pumping.
i'd argue knight in shining armor makes you think italian "white armor" not german gothic
To back up your point, the justly famous 'Sigmund gothic' armour (A 62 KMW, Wien), widely considered the apex of the style, is made up of parts most of which show substantial damage, and had reached the end of their working life. More to come, when I (eventually) finish my massive paper about this armour. Concerning the hard edged 'Kastenbrust style'; I know of no attempt to find out how ballistically resistant the form would be. It is obvious, however, that landing a projectile 'normal' to such a surface would be just about impossible. I must say, alas, that I have yet to see a correct interpretation of the form; so far, they are all making fundamental shaping mistakes. The mad sleeves of the von Roggendorf and the superior example in the Met NYC have astonishing mobility, as a friend of mine (Scott Martin) witnessed. Dr. Pfaffenbichler demonstrated this to him by seizing the cuff and randomly pulling it around. Alas, he only got the tail end of this impromptu demonstration on videotape (yes, it was awhile ago). He said the sleeve moved in a marvelously fluid fashion.
I can't wait to read your paper on A62! Consider this gentle encouragement so that we may all feast our eyes on it (eventually). :)
I have seen Mac's critiques of common mistakes in shaping the kastenbrust form in modern reproduction, mostly centered on how modern armorers tend to place the protrusion too high on the breastplate (chest-height when perhaps slightly below the waist might be closer to depictions); what else do you frequently observe?
@@lorica-clothing By putting it too high, it messes with the basic ergonomic interaction of the breastplate with the ribcage. Think of the Kastenbrust fitting around the maximum expansion of the ribcage if it is made correctly. Putting the point too high means it needs curvature on the underside that you don't see in the art, nor should you. I looked into 'Kastenbrust' construction at length in preparation for Ronald F. Maxwell's epic 'Joan of Arc' film (I was in charge of armour. Great pity the project crashed in pre-production due to Luc Besson's dreadful film), as I was going to put them on the Burgundians (earliest place you see them is in the Low Countries, not the HRE). I used to joke that one of these days I am going to write a paper called 'The Kastenbrust'; Ergonomic Triumph, Aesthetic Catastrophe'. 🙃
@ Fascinating, I didn’t realize the implications of the misplacement! Hopefully one day we’ll see someone really nail the shape, it seems “simple” enough to recognize when pointed out, if of course a trick to execute.
@@lorica-clothing Admittedly, even the boxiest had subtle convex curvatures where necessary; have a look at the German breastplate from that time in the Met NYC. A pity I can't post photos; the profile photo I have is VERY revealing, and you can see how the boxy ones would have been formed. 'The Prayer on the Shore' in the Turin-Milan Book of Hours and thought to be by either Jan or Hubert van Eyck is dated to about 1422 to 1425 shows some breastplates that are almost there; they show the almost flat planes but the corners are soft.
A rich looking armor might mean that you will be taken hostage and put up for ransom instead of just..you know😱🔨💥 💀
A thought: being recognized WAS an essential part of armor even back then. How are you going to tell that the dude totally covered in metal is your friend or foe? Modern soldiers also suffer from this when everyone is in camo. Armor was painted or had cloth attached to it, covered in heraldic colors (either yours or your lords') and decorated in other ways to aid this function. Details that were lost for the modern museum pieces through time. A king who you could recognize instantly by the gilding of his armor was a king you could see and pick apart from the crowd (there was no "snipers", the point of armor was that you had far less to worry about archers and penetrating top-grade armor is a lot harder than a lot of youtubers make it out to be).
It is also important to understand that beauty and masculinity was just different in medieval Europe. Flamboyance was seen as masculine. Somber austerity, utilitarianism and denouncement of beauty was for monks (and peasents but that's another topic). To display wealth was to reinforce your authority (and these decorated armors were often worn by nobles who HAD authority) and reinforce your power. A bare metal soldier was seen as penniless straggler and likely a coward, while one decorated (in gear and out) was seen as successful, look, he has money to adorn himself! This seems strange to a modern viewer but the past is another country.
i am ugly, i don't leverage any power at all 😂
Very nice Video
If you want to say fancy armour is not just for appearance you must show it stopping threats to life
1- the test of armour is not if you can move in it easily or have a good field of view if that were it people would where regular clothing and while movement and vision are still important THAT IS NOT WHAT ARMOUR IS FOR !
2- The test of armour is will it stop an arrow from a long bow , will it stop a sword or spear thrust will it prevent crush injury from a 1kg 50cm long club swung at 30 degrees per second ? Armour must be able to stop significant threats to life and limb by a determined opponent or there is no reason to where it in the first place !
Sure. And the beautiful armors shown here were made of the same quality and weight of steel, offered the same coverage, and followed all the same essential design principles as their plainer counterparts.
@@lorica-clothing
1- a flat sheet of steel and a fluted sheet of steel will not have the same mass because you need more steel to make the flutes
2- a significant function of armour is to allow a weapons to slid over and off to limit energy transfer to the person being protected by it . Putting deep furrows in it tends to catch a sliding object allowing more energy to be transferred to both the armour and the person beneath making it easier to break the armour or knock the person down
3- if these were practical armour that was used in combat we would see minor dents that were still to deep to just pound back out and cuts that were still to deep to polish out . While we do occasionally see that but also vast amounts that show no signs of combat use ever indicating it was not used to protect individuals when they were needing protection, and this indication as to why they would compromise the design as they knew it would never face an enemy weapon
@@woltews
1. Fluting adds rigidity, the same principle as corrugated metal today. Given how many armors we see that were fluted, it obviously worked well enough (or not badly enough) to be maintained as a style over a century; but of course we see plainer styles like the Milanese, as well. Every design choice is a conversation among function, fashion, and cost.
2. I constantly see this "catching" critique and really haven't heard of any evidence to corroborate it, either among historical sources or friends who have fought in high-end reproduction armors. Flutes and other decorative grooves might offer more surfaces for weapons to "bite" than a completely smooth surface, but what threats are you imagining here? The highly ornate armors I discuss in the video, such as the Landsknecht examples, were likely used for courtly foot combat where crossbow bolts and lances were not on the menu, and polearms were often blunted for the sport. They only had to be designed to withstand the threats of the game, so comparing them to armor for the field is comparing a Bugatti La Voiture Noire to a Honda Odyssey.
3. You first have to consider that most of our modern museum examples have been heavily restored such that their current finish cannot necessarily be assumed to be original. Secondly, there are plenty of examples of high-end field and tournament armors that bear gouges and signs of wear, tear, and repair, notably KHM A60 for one. It's hardly "occasional."
1- I know that fluting adds some rigidity at the cost of extra weight but much of the fluting we se is not really going to be that effective ether being to shallow or way way to deep in the example of corrugated galvanized iron it is important to remember that that is never heat treated and has no temper unlike armour should have
2- look up shot trap in the context of modern armoured vehicles for a truly tragic example but this same principal will hold true for any armour when faced with high velocity hits as will happen when people are fighting for there lives they will hit as hard and as fast as they possibly can .
3- I guess this gets to the main point is armour for games really armour , we do not call football padding armour , we dont call a batters helmet armour , we cont call a jock strap armour . We dont generally call sporting equipment armour because nobody is really trying to kill each other but police security guards , military personnel ware armour because they might face deadly violence from armed opponents who most certainly do want to kill them(I know some brands incorporate the term armour but are extremely clear in there warnety information that the sporting equipment is not intended to protect against edged weapons , bullets or other deadly threats ) @@lorica-clothing
@@woltews 2- there's plenty of examples of "shot traps" in medieval armour. Just look at ridges in the lower cannon of a mid-XVth century Italian arm harness. At some point you don't want points sliding everywhere, you want them to stop. So that's a known issue in armour and they played deliberately with it. They knew what they were doing, their lives often depended on it.
3- decorated and fancy tournament armour that might not be optimized to stop a couched lance is not any less armour than a smooth sallet for war. It's still armour. People did die in tournaments as well, even when the aim was not to kill anyone and the weapons were blunt or had no tips. And when I say tournament, usually it means mass cavalry combat in an enclosed space. That's what a lot of these armours were for. Still brutal, still violent, but not war.
Something many people forget is that armor was *expensive.* When you pay that much for something you're gonna treat it less like PPE and more like your car. You want it to look nice and shiny, and shapely. No one wants a hoopty.
Of course, the most common way to acquire armor in the middle ages wasn't to order it and have it fitted to you, but rather to inherit it from an older family member. Most families had "the family armor." So there were definitely people riding around in hoopties as well. The more things change the more they stay the same.
This is actually probably the opposite of how most wealthy people thought in the period. I mean the truly wealthy who could afford armor. A lord would commission an armor gilt with gold and a lot of fancy engraving, pontille or etching depending on the period, and then go fight in it. We're talking about something like buying a Ferrari and driving it in a demolition derby. One of the many fascinating things to know about medieval culture is that perception is everything. (arguably this is still true today). The point of this would be that if I am a lord wealthy enough to drive my Ferrari in a demolition race, that is a public demonstration of my wealth, that I can afford to trash a brand new Ferrari. What's even more astonishing to modern sensibilities is that in many cases, this lord would have commissioned the armor for one specific tournament, never to wear it again.
@firelock9080 well 1) armor isn't that fragile. Sure it'll get scratched and minorly dented, but it won't be destroyed in battle (even if YOU are). And wearing it in battle is the whole point--it's armor. You're not driving your Ferrari in a demolition derby, you're taking it out on the Autobahn. You'd be using that armor exactly for its intended purpose. You don't wear it about town unless you have a reason--it's 50+ pounds of steel.
Secondly, armor was expensive, but not that expensive. By the early 15th century, which is when full-body plate armor emerges, most knights and men-at-arms (who were commoners) had access to plate harness. It just didn't all have gilding and tinning and fancy filework. Like I originally said, there were many different levels of expense for armor based on what the wearer had on hand/could afford. They weren't all Ferraris. Some were more of a Toyota Carolla.
The majority of armor and weapons historically were more likely than not treated as tools first, and art second. It can take a fair deal of punishment, and was meant to keep you alive. Only some people had enough money to buy so many harnesses that they could treat it like a luxury first and tool second.
cool
I will naturally say that it is very correct that beautiful armour was worn and used in war. But I find your framing a bit strange, albeit I don't deny I might be misreading you; take this as an accentuation of your initial words. You obviously know what you're talking about.
Beauty has not been more associated with femininity in the last 100 years than it was previously, why would you think that? Beauty has always been associated with femininity, deeply and intensely so. And I think it hardly sensible to discard the abundance of historical records we have of, say, clergy, pointing out how foppish and effeminate overly decorated noblemen could appear to their own contemporaries.
I plan to make a video about this topic in the future, but since the Great Male Renunciation in the late 18th century, male presentation has became largely drab, simple, and homogenous compared to the colorful and ostentatious costume of the past. By contrast womenswear continues to embrace color and variety (to say nothing of how beauty is commodified for women, and that pressure only seems to intensify over time versus the visual expectations placed on men, which one could argue have relaxed over time). There could be several explanations for this trend: the French Revolution creating a broad distaste for gaudy displays of wealth; industrialization and mass production resulting in necessarily more utilitarian clothing; and the changing visual language of war, as uniforms evolve to escape detection rather than intentionally gain notice as technology and tactics change over time. Since men perform far more blue collar and military work than women, our conception of what a man "should" look like may have evolved into one that is "practical" and "no-nonsense" where in the past active cultivation of beauty could suggest power, wealth, and influence when military dress was highly visible by necessity, and trendy fashion was not readily available to the masses.
@@lorica-clothing Very well, thanks for the extensive reply. I really think it was your phrasing that confused me - of course, beauty was *less associated with men* , you saying more with women threw me off, sorry - we're on the same page, then. My comment did actually initially contain a passage about how I would speak of a decline in aristocracy as central to this matter, but I didn't want to seem too nosy, so I cut it.
Nice video. Dont forget that wearers of fancy armour would be behind the 'front line' giving orders to their subordinates. The armour was to keep them alive if their bodyguards were over come.
@@peterbrooks9984 Not necessarily. The aristocracy was the warrior class for much of the Middle Ages - success in combat was how they achieved wealth and influence in the first place. It’s of course dependent on place and time, but it’s a very modern false assumption that the nobility did not fight.
Most of those armour wearers would be in the first line charging the enemy, actually. Their whole legitimacy was based on the fact that they were fighting.
A lot of “fancy armor” was worn by heavy cavalrymen such as knights and later gendarmes. The guys who charge directly into enemy formations while taking whatever projectiles come their way. The vast majority of those men were nobility. Even kings would take an active roll in combat for much of the medieval period and renaissance.