The field of arms and Armor is beset with romantic legends, gory myths, and widely held misconceptions.
Their origins usually are to be found in lack of knowledge of, and experience with, genuine objects and their
historical background. Most of them are utter nonsense, devoid of any historical base.
Perhaps the most infamous example is the notion that "knights had to be hoisted into their saddles with a crane,"
which is absurd as it is persisyeven among many historians. In other instances, certain technical details that escape
an obvious explanation have become the focus of lurid and fantastically attempts to explain their original function.
Among these, the lance rest, an object protruding from the proper right side of many breastplates, probably holds
first place.
Misconceptions;
Armor was not only worn by Knights...the common belief is probably a result of the romantic notion of the "knight in
shining Armor, an image that itself harbours a host of further misconceptions. First Knights rarely fought alone, nor
did medieval and Renaissance armies consist entirely of mounted Knights, although knights were the dominant force
of these armies, they were invariably and with time increasingly so-supported ,( and opposed) by foot solders, such
as archers and pikeman.
During a campaign, a knight depended on a small host of retainers, squires, and attendants who lent armed support
and looked after his horses, armor, and other equipment not to mention the peasants and craftsmen who made the
organization of a feudal society with it's warrior class possible in the first place, also it is wrong to assume that every
nobleman was a knight, Knights were not born but created, by other knights, feudal lords, or sometimes priests. And
Under certain conditions, people of non-noble birth could be knighted.
There are several references to women participating in armed conflict from most periods of history, while some
evidence is available for noble ladies -turned military commanders, such as Countess Jeanne de Penthievre(1319-
1384) there are only scattered references to women from lower levels of society taking up arms. Nevertheless, some
are recorded as having fought in armor, although no contemporary illustrations showing any of them actually wearing
armor appear to have survived. Joan of Arc (ca.1412-1431), probably the most famous example of a female warrior
is reputed to have had a suit of armor commissioned for her by the French King Charles VII, yet only one small illusion
of her, undoubtedly drawn during her lifetime has come down to us, showing her with a sword and banner but dressed
in armor. The fact that contemporaries apparently perceived women leading an army, or wearing armor, as something
worth recording at least at in writing indicates that such a sight must have been an exception rather than the rule.
With the appearance of fire arms as early as the third decade of the 14th century, there was a gradual decline of
armor, not noticed before the second half of 17th century, firearms and plate armor coexisted for more than 300 years.
Armor never became entirely obsolete, the ubiquity of helmets worn today by soldiers and police forces are proof
that armor, although of different material and having perhaps lost some of its earlier importance, is stil essential part
of martial equipment around the world.
http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/aams/hd_aams.htm
