Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
Armor - Temple Knight by reaper78 Armor - Temple Knight by reaper78
temple knight armor
Add a Comment:
 
:iconxelianthought:
xelianthought Featured By Owner Apr 19, 2015
The legs are a bit impractical but the rest is awesome. 
Reply
:iconnemedeus:
nemedeus Featured By Owner Jan 3, 2015  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
I'm conflicted now.
Reply
:iconchirurgeon:
chirurgeon Featured By Owner Nov 15, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
nicely drawn, love the whole flow of the armour....very nice indeed

...just needs a strap to connect the cuisses to the torso armor, or the whole leg armour will fall off after two steps. (from personal experience wearing armour....ouch!)
Reply
:iconacetriad:
AceTriad Featured By Owner Oct 4, 2014
A compromise. High heels were invented in medieval times so that Horsemen could ride horses easier. Then girls wanted to be more manly, so they wore them for centuries, and since girls looked hotter in them, and the fact that no one remembered this, high heels became widespread.
Reply
:iconfanofdante:
FanofDante Featured By Owner Jul 3, 2014
A non Skimpy and functional Female Knight Armor?
WHY HAVEN'T I SEE THIS B4??!! WHERE THE HELL HAVE U BEEN ALL THIS TIME IN MY LIFE???!!!
Reply
:iconnemedeus:
nemedeus Featured By Owner Jan 3, 2015  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
"functional"... well, more or less. I can appreciate omission of the boob-plate, but then the actual harness that is missing is kind of a huge weakness (mail is almost useless against thrusting attacks.) I don't even want to start about the zettai ryoiki...
And high heels are a safety risk in a fight, period.

I'm sorry, i just felt the need to point that out.
Reply
:iconfanofdante:
FanofDante Featured By Owner Mar 12, 2015
ah snap, you're right, after re watching it again I just realized I overlooked those points on the design. Thanks for pointing that out m8.
Reply
:iconnemedeus:
nemedeus Featured By Owner Mar 13, 2015  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Okay, so i have done some more research into it and i have to correct myself: mail armor is not at all useless against thrusts. I assume it does depend on the mail armor, and the thrusting weapon, but in general, i was wrong to just say that mail is useless or almost useless against thrusting attacks.
That said, there were specialized armor piercing swords (the so called "Estoc", or Tuck Sword, which is absolutely a thrusting weapon). I would assume that these could be effective in the thrust against mail armor.
Reply
:iconfanofdante:
FanofDante Featured By Owner Mar 18, 2015
actually, the part that I meant was not the chainmail m8, but the High Heels that you pointed out lol.
but yeah, never underestimate chainmails, there's a reason they are available in almost every RPGs.
Reply
:iconladarkprophet:
LaDarkProphet Featured By Owner Jun 30, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
you do realize that her thighs are exposed right? adn that as a templar who has strong connections to the church would be either flogged or beatean for exposing them? no self respecting women wouldd go into battle with her thighs exposed.
Reply
:iconladarkprophet:
LaDarkProphet Featured By Owner Jun 30, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Their are major arteries there and it is just asking for a dagger cut or an arrow to go through them
Reply
:iconchaffton:
Chaffton Featured By Owner May 25, 2014
Almost there, only need more mail to cover her thighs
Reply
:icongermanpete:
GermanPete Featured By Owner Aug 25, 2014  Hobbyist Photographer
And maybe some plate on the outside, to deflect the strikes glancing off the torso armor.
Which is a good one, by the way.
Reply
:iconnemedeus:
nemedeus Featured By Owner Jan 3, 2015  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
and maybe some plate on the torso to deflect the THRUSTS that are going to come her way. Also, mail doesn't really cause cuts to glance off as plate does.
Reply
:iconenvygl:
envygl Featured By Owner May 8, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Awesome!
Reply
:iconwnter06:
wnter06 Featured By Owner May 5, 2014
joy
Reply
:iconyusef1:
Yusef1 Featured By Owner Oct 26, 2013  Professional Artisan Crafter
The peter pan getaway boots are just cute... 
I don't think you would find an example of those!
But if I had ANY complaint...it would not be the armour. 
Half of Europe was trying to make every armour different from the last one!

No...its that stupid weapon.  Obviously this girl is only three feet high!
Reply
:iconyusef1:
Yusef1 Featured By Owner Oct 26, 2013  Professional Artisan Crafter
Parade armour became popular mosty after guns were invented.  No parade armour was made to be fought in...it was too light to actually function AS armour.  (though of course, there were times...) Because it was made to be seen, not used, it was often wildly elabourate, sometimes pretty odd.  There are HUNDREDS of examples of armour just like the one above which were histrically accurate...though of course they would never go bare legged.  They would wear wear hosen.  And women are not part of that exclusive armour wearing club.   Anybody who bothers to walk through a real armour gallery in, say Malta, Leeds or Vienna would see that men on horseback with half armour. The knees and shins...very rare.  Boots...never. 

Could this armour exist?  Well, we are looking at two armours now arn't we.  The legs don't go with a chain mail top.  So would it exist...  Oh, certainly it exists.  And of course, you would no more fight in it than you would race around a race track in a Cadillac Motor Car.   Such armour is made to see and be seen in.

So as a professional Armour Maker myself, I see a young girl dressing up in her brothers armour, and the odd flares are easily no different from some of the wild Rococco stuff which is actually "period" .  Some have bitched about the high heels.  High heels, again, are period, but only for men.   And you need heels of some kind to be able to ride.  D type stirrups need heeled shoes.  So not even the high heels gets dissed here!
 

So those who complain about this not being a "fighting armour", well, that is not its function.  This armour certainly does exist, and was used.  But not for fighting. 
Reply
:icondarylchin:
DarylChin Featured By Owner Jan 31, 2014
My thoughts exactly. I could imagine sons (or daughters) from the noble families clad in such armor, playing soldier... say the church's high priest guard to increase their social status. They are there to look pretty but not fight.
Reply
:iconpascalkrafft:
pascalkrafft Featured By Owner Oct 8, 2013
nive :)
Reply
:iconjacob-cross:
Jacob-Cross Featured By Owner Jul 8, 2013
Nice :)
Reply
:iconteano:
TEANO Featured By Owner Jul 8, 2013
Armour high heels! Awesome!
Reply
:icongray-philosophy:
Gray-philosophy Featured By Owner Apr 2, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Regarding the criticism about the design, i'll take your side and defend it! *Heroic pose*

the heels may prove ineffective in certain terrain, but with a bit of practice one can learn to move around in heels almost as effectively as in regular footwear. I've seen women shuffle in high heels, it's totally possible. Additionally they may double as weapons!

As for the exposed legs, this could also be used as an advantage, The potential weakness may draw the attention of her opponents to that particular weakspot in the armor, letting her take advantage of an opponent's likely-to-be-predictable attacks.


Aside from all that!
The drawing looks absolutely awesome!
Reply
:iconmrgrim147:
mrgrim147 Featured By Owner Sep 26, 2013  Student Writer
Regarding your defense against the criticism of this design, I'll attack it! *malicious pose* 

Rather than practicing in the heels, simple boots would be more effective and easy. And no matter how good you are at heels they would be nothing but a hindrance on rocky or other rough terrain.

There are a ton of important bloody vessels in the legs, a lot of them positioned around the thighs. One blow slipping through to catch the obvious gaps in the amour will probably mean death. 

While I disagree with your reasons for the amour being even slightly practical, I agree, this is fucking amazing art and I love the design for this Knight even if I personally wouldn't wear the amour into battle for any reason  
Reply
:iconmalkrow21:
malkrow21 Featured By Owner Mar 5, 2014
While it is true that there are tons of important blood vessels in the legs, it's also important to keep in mind that exposed legs among arms and face were, are and will continue to be the most common exposed parts of any soldier. They typically focus on the torso and the head 'cause to them, those are the most important to protect. Yes, you would want to protect your arms and legs, but you also want to be able to run and swing your weapons around effectively. And you may also want to protect your face as your opponent can get to your brain from there, you also want to see what your doing, and be understood when your yelling to your troops if  your a commander of sort. Not to mention that you want to also want to hear what's going on around you.

Honestly, though. I do have this feeling that the only reason why you're bringing up the leg is because this knight is a woman and if she were to have been a man wearing even less armor,  you'd probably just comment about how cool and badass he'd look. I've seen female warriors wearing practical armor that protects all of their vital organs receive more criticism than a shirtless male warrior. Am I being too harsh here? It's only based on what I've been seeing.
Reply
:iconmrgrim147:
mrgrim147 Featured By Owner Mar 9, 2014  Student Writer
Well, to refer to your final point, I think bulky armor that covers your entire body looks much more intimidating and, dare I say it, "cooler" then some guy with no pants. Not sure where you're getting any other idea or impression from.
To answer the rest of your statements in no particular order:
1. Movement is important, but seriously anything more then a nick anywhere near your thighs will leave you unconscious or dead in minutes. Wear leg armor
2. Vision is less vital then not getting an arrow in your face, and as for communication, they made a thing for that called a "visor"   
Reply
:iconmalkrow21:
malkrow21 Featured By Owner Mar 10, 2014
Look, man, don't tell me how to wear armor; I'm not the one who decided what or what not the troops get to wear. Secondly, I'm not taking exclusively about knights, I'm talking about troops on the field in general. Generally speaking, from ancient times, to modern times and to the future, most troops protected their torso and heads. They left their arms, legs, and faces exposed because to them, it's just not as important as their torso and their heads.
Reply
:iconmrgrim147:
mrgrim147 Featured By Owner Mar 10, 2014  Student Writer
That may be true for your cannon fodder conscripts and scouts, but for any dedicated man-at-arms or knight full body protection is both required and expected 
Reply
:iconmalkrow21:
malkrow21 Featured By Owner Mar 12, 2014
"That may be true for your cannon fodder conscripts..." Wow, what a douchebag! Is that what you call the troops deployed overseas in Afghanistan? Have you ever considered that a soldier has to carry more than just his armor and weapon, and that he has to be ready for quick deployment? Or how about that all that shit the soldier carries is paid for by the government or the military itself? He can't enlist by buying his own set of weapons and armor you, know. Plus all that shit is expensive, to have to pay for the soldiers' weapons, equipment and armor. A soldier has to do more than just fight, too. Unlike what they may depict in movies or video games, a soldier isn't constantly fighting. Hell, some of them may never even fight at all during their time in the military, even in combat roles. Perhaps about 99.99% of the time, you're average soldier--regardless of what period--isn't fighting, which means only about a 00.01% chance of him ever being involved in combat. So with such a low chance of combat and a high chance of marching, patrolling, among other activities, would you really think it's wise to give them full sets of armor, especially when they have to carry a bunch of other crap, too during prolonged periods of no fighting? This isn't just in regards of today's troops, but also of troops in the past. They have to carry more than their weapons and armor and they have to do more than just fight. And, again, all their stuff is payed for and given to them by the government or the military, and both of them have other things to worry about than to make sure each individual soldier is fully armored.


Don't talk to me again if you're just going to call troops of the past, today or a future a bunch of "cannon fodder conscripts." Shame on you.
Reply
:iconmrgrim147:
mrgrim147 Featured By Owner Mar 12, 2014  Student Writer
Woooo, ok calm down maybe? 
1. My comments are purely regarding the above picture and the period of time this type of armor might have occurred in, I have made literally NO reference to modern soldiers or wars
2. As for your comment about soldiers from any period of history spending 99.99% of their time not fighting, this is false. Oooooh is it ever false. Read up on some of conflicts between Britain and France during the Dark and Middle ages. 13 - 1400's, if you were male, English and poor, there is little chance that you would have managed to not be drafted into any of the countless border and land disputes happening around that era. And this is if you WEREN'T a professional fighter.
3. This kind of thing is by no means restricted to but one area of Europe, it was happening all over the world 
4. Before you start bitching at me, realize that I was in no way approving of, or complementing the use of lightly armored and poorly trained conscripts, I was making a statement that these kind of soldiers existed and were used by most nations in the world at one point or another. And they weren't good for much other then drowning the enemies in superior numbers of for catching arrows.  
Reply
(2 Replies)
:icongray-philosophy:
Gray-philosophy Featured By Owner Sep 26, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist

Regarding your attack upon my defense of the criticism of this design, I'll go along with your logic whilst defending my points *determined poser*

 

Valid point indeed sir. Regardless of skill boots will always outperform heels in terms of practicality. But depending on circumstances one may still learn to move effeciently enough in heels.

 

Yet another valid point. It is certainly a bit of a gamble to attempt to exploit exposed weaknesses as an advantage.

 

Aside from this I still find the armor practical looking in the way its pieces fit together and interlock according to anatomical functions. And also that it doesn't have a solid metal bust.

 

Atleast we can agree that it's awesome! :D

Reply
:iconmrgrim147:
mrgrim147 Featured By Owner Sep 26, 2013  Student Writer
Eh, I'll let you have this one *tips hat* 


Reply
:icongray-philosophy:
Gray-philosophy Featured By Owner Sep 26, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Oh no sir you may have it *tips hat back*
Reply
:icondarylchin:
DarylChin Featured By Owner Sep 26, 2013
Well look at it this way. She's a Temple Knight, offshoot divisions from battlefield knights. Their existence are a symbolic power. At best, they play security guard for the temple's clergy.

Most of these Temple Knights comprise of the sons and daughters of dukes and barons who never experience real combat. They are the last one to be called to war. That said, their armor designs has the obvious weak points and impractically ornate.

They are there to look strong to stir confidence from the public towards the faith.
Reply
:icongray-philosophy:
Gray-philosophy Featured By Owner Sep 26, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
I never thought about it that way. Interesting! :D
Reply
:icondarylchin:
DarylChin Featured By Owner Oct 1, 2013
Ceremonial warriors that consists of the children of the influential people who had the spare time to play soldier. Knows how to fight but never applied it yet. You gotta have some of them to propagate a country's strength. 

"Join Eastland's Army! Enlist Today!"
Reply
:iconthegentlemaninblack:
TheGentlemanInBlack Featured By Owner Feb 11, 2013  Student General Artist
Can't believe so many people are complaining about the logic of the armor, can't we just appreciate how awesome this looks? Great job :D
Reply
:iconivteen:
IVTEEN Featured By Owner Jan 21, 2013
WOW i thought that's Hilde from Soul Calibur 8-)
Reply
:iconlothar2009:
lothar2009 Featured By Owner Nov 30, 2012
Nicely exposed thighs, perfect weak spot for the enemy...and the high heels. Kudos for historical accuracy.
Reply
:iconpie5525:
PIE5525 Featured By Owner Dec 2, 2012
Fantasy game logic!
Reply
:iconda1withdalongestname:
Not skimpy, appropriately covered, nice posture. I like it a lot
Reply
:iconxxwarmindedxx:
xXwarmindedXx Featured By Owner Sep 20, 2012
hey the matter of wether or not you can fight in high-heels completely depends on the person i know a girl who can move better in high-heels just cuz she wears them more then reguler shoes and if them things are steel like the rest of the outfit then she could not only be worry free in the matter of them braeking but use them as a vary brutal stomping tool XD and the lightness of the armor to me gives the impresion shes not intending to take a heavy blow, relying mostly on dexterity rather then deffence so in my eyes this Knight is just as well off as any other besides it looks inspired by knights templar who didnt have a lot of armor mostly chainmail so she in that aspect is actually vary heavy armored this is kick ass work reaper78 i hope i have your skill some day
Reply
:iconroman11777:
roman11777 Featured By Owner Aug 30, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
Doesn't look like it could protect her against shit. And heels on the battlefield? She's just asking to be killed.
Reply
:iconaesop-epics:
Aesop-Epics Featured By Owner Jul 23, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
This is AMAZING!!! I could actually see a person going into battle with this.
Reply
:iconxlegendariumx:
XlegendariumX Featured By Owner Jun 9, 2012  Student General Artist
so false...
Reply
:iconphishythoughts:
Phishythoughts Featured By Owner Apr 19, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
thanks you helped me!
Reply
:iconkingfox66:
kingfox66 Featured By Owner Apr 17, 2012
that is a nice pics
Reply
:iconkeirtanaka:
KeirTanaka Featured By Owner Apr 14, 2012  Hobbyist Artist
You should do a joke version wear her lower extremities are COMPLETELY exposed!
Reply
:iconmalkrow21:
malkrow21 Featured By Owner Mar 16, 2012
For those of you who are criticizing her exposed legs just remember: Arms and legs were and are still the most common things to have unprotected, just look back at the Roman Legionnaires or even at today's modern troops. Granted, she's supposed to be a knight and knights were usually wore full armor--but I find it a little ridiculous how this woman received criticism for her exposed legs when this man [link] hasn't received any for his exposed arms, legs and head.
Really, the only flaw I see is the fact that she's wearing high-heels, that's the only thing I would criticize.
Reply
:iconbloodgolem:
BloodGolem Featured By Owner Sep 16, 2012
i agree, i thought it harsh to say she is unprotected (she looks well protected in all the area she's wearing armor!) and areas lacking armor make sense for freedom of movement... its just those high-heels... well she'll turn heads as well as roll heads on the battlefield! :)
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×




Details

Submitted on
February 11, 2011
Image Size
728 KB
Resolution
1240×1754
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
65,601 (6 today)
Favourites
1,558 (who?)
Comments
85
×