Deviant Login Shop  Join deviantART for FREE Take the Tour
×



Details

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

Stats

Views
52,656 (31 today)
Favourites
1,349 (who?)
Comments
69
×
Armor - Temple Knight by reaper78 Armor - Temple Knight by reaper78
temple knight armor
Add a Comment:
 
:iconyusef1:
Yusef1 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 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:
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
:iconteano:
Armour high heels! Awesome!
Reply
:icongray-philosophy:
Gray-philosophy 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:
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:
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:
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
Add a Comment: