In many fictional depictions of medieval European armor, one arm is less armored than the other, like in many of Dark Souls' armor sets.
From what I've seen of actual armor, this isn't historical; both arms would have been equally armored. So my first question is whether that's true; are there any examples in real life of people forgoing some or all of the armor on one of their arms?
If so, would it have been on the sword arm, as pictured, or on the shield arm, as is so in the typical depiction of a gladiator?
If there's no historical evidence for this asymmetry, then what would be more practical in your book? Would you have more armor on the sword arm, because you already have a shield on the other arm, or having more armor on the shield arm, because you need to better maneuver your sword? Am I justified in being annoyed that a bunch of Dark Souls' armor sets have the armor on the shield side?
I know some Roman gladiators only had one arm armored, but then again, that was show fighting, not people trying to prepare themselves as best they could for battle.
Outside of that, I can't think of an example.
David Reyes
Isn't the most armored arm the nearest to the enemy if confronted from the front (and right handed)?
Maybe it was the one likeliest to be hit.
Asher Morales
>no historical evidence
Nathaniel Thompson
...
David Brown
Oh, I didn't realize that depiction of gladiators was actually historical; thought it was just a Hollywood invention after the fact.
That might be the only historical example then.
Jonathan Cook
...
Benjamin Cook
You're a retard. These took a 5 second google search to find. I know for a fact that this one is genuine.
Zachary Powell
That is jousting armor, though, right? Would that have only been worn in tournaments, or even still on the battlefield by the cavalry?
Historically in late medieval and early modern period when plate armour really took off and cavalry started to wear a full plate, the lance shoulder of cavalry was typically more armoured as other side was protect by shield but only minimally so. This is most obvious in Northern Italian cavalry armour.
The distinct difference between arms you see is an artefact from jousting, where contestants were very heavily armoured, more so than usual combat armour of time which also started to phase out in warfare. Their lance side was very heavily reinforced to absorb to hit from opponents lance as it was intended to be a show support so no injury was prepared.
So basically it's a real phenomenon but not to degree you see in media which is more influenced by jousting armour.
Christopher Cooper
these fuckers apparently carry double weight on modern heavy soldiers but what arch/foot support (if any) did they have? surely they couldnt have operated longevity sustainably
Bentley Nelson
It was a very common thing to do with jousting armors. Don't know about combat tho.
Juan Morgan
who cares if it's historical, it's a fantasy game. It should just look cool and fit the setting, which it does. Dark Souls does a better job with armor than any other game I can think of
Nathaniel Jackson
When everything looks "cool" it becomes bland and banal. Media is full of same type of early modern period lancer or jousting armours and no variety what so ever. You will rarely see chainmails in medieval settings when in reality you would barely see plate in medieval era.
Lincoln Peterson
you've definitely never played dark souls
Ethan Hill
I did not actually but I am talking about a general media perspective not just dark souls in particular.
Daniel Brooks
What the fuck are you talking about
Matthew Ross
Even though I don't really agree with you, the fact that Romans are always depicted wearing Lorica Segmentata is pretty irritating, especially when hamata was cool looking too.
Yeah, I'm aware this is pretty nitpicky; I do love the armor, and the asymmetry is cool. Really, I just want some consistency in the depictions on which side is less armored.
Gavin Diaz
But that's Jousting armour, not combat armour
Owen Sanders
What? A full set of plate armour is about half the amount of weight a modern soldier carries, plus it's distributed across the body.
Hunter Parker
Archaic hoplites. Left arm bore the aspis, and as such had no need of armor. right arm could be covered in bronze.
Romans in dacia. Manica goes on the right arm. Left is carrying a shield.
Daniel Torres
What is this? I see many armors have this thing on the left shoulder. Is there some practical reason?
Jacob Davis
for lancers, especially mounted ones, they would be holding their lance with their right hand and facing the enemy with their left shoulder. That plate is extra insurance that another mounted enemy's weapon won't slide off a shield or the upper arm plate into the gap between the pauldron (or spaulder) and the helmet - the neck.
Hudson Mitchell
Otherway around. The left arm is heavily armoured, with the shield being replaced by the armour itself.
Jonathan Taylor
Why is he so went bros?
Nicholas Price
Milanese plate frequently has asymmetrical armour
Liam White
I see. Thanx.
Brody Garcia
>implying max armour doesn't have the shoulder armour
Easton Rogers
sometimes fantasy armour doesn't live up to the real shit
Ryan Young
If you were a knight you had a guy for that
Ryder Hernandez
For sure
Jacob Fisher
you probably have seen this one
Lucas Butler
user
Jason Moore
It seems to have been a thing quite frequently when large shields were involved. There's the famous Roman manica, I believe there are examples of hoplites using similar armor as well evidence that it was done on occasion in the middle ages too.
Aiden Reyes
lol that helmet was only used for tournaments it's totally impractical in battlefield because you can't turn your head
