4 ms·

Now let's tackle the similar misconception about armor weight: this myth got so absurd that some still believe knights actually had to be hoisted up with cranes

Now let's tackle the similar misconception about armor weight: this myth got so absurd that some still believe knights actually had to be hoisted up with cranes onto on their horses. Whereas in the real world, I've seen people doing backflips in full plate.

Sander_Marechal 2y ago
Absolutely, see for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-bnM5SuQkI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-bnM5SuQkI
- paleotrope 2y ago
  The horse isn't going to like that mounting method if the knight has spurs on.
dghf 2y ago
Henry VIII (in his younger, athletic days) could leap into the saddle in full armour without using the stirrups, and was very proud of it.
- chuckadams 2y ago
  In his later days though... he might have needed that crane ;)
- SV_BubbleTime 2y ago
  Supreme leader played golf this weekend and got 17 hole-in-ones. Remind me who history is written by.
  - waveBidder 2y ago
    The losers. The winners are too busy governing to give a shit. https://scholars-stage.org/history-is-written-by-the-losers/ https://scholars-stage.org/history-is-written-by-the-losers/
    - jollyllama 2y ago
      from the article: > We say that history is written by the winners. That is sometimes true.
    - pdonis 2y ago
      While that article is very interesting, I'm not sure its main argument is actually correct, at least not in the wide, general way it is made. For example, the article says that if Churchill had not been thrown out of power at the end of WW II, his history of that war would never have been written. I'm not sure that's actually true--Churchill had done plenty of writing before that and probably would have found time to write such a history later on anyway. But even if it's true, it doesn't mean that we would be without any history of WW II if Churchill had remained in power. There are plenty of other histories of that war, including ones which take very different viewpoints from Churchill's. But even leaving that aside: yes, Churchill "lost" in the sense that his party lost the election in 1945. But that does not make Churchill a loser in WW II itself, nor does it make his history of that war a history written by a loser. Indeed, his history of WW II, as far as I can tell, says nothing about his loss of the Prime Ministership or the party that defeated him. It talks about his own leadership during the war, which, at least as far as keeping Britain from being conquered and reclaiming Western Europe was concerned, was a victory, not a loss. The example of Thucydides also isn't as simple as the article makes it out to be. Yes, Thucydides was originally an Athenian and fought on the Athenian side, i.e., the side that would eventually lose, in the Peloponnesian War. But Thucydides was exiled from Athens long before that war ended and Athens fell from power--and where did he settle? In the Peloponnese, i.e., in the domain of Sparta. In other words, he wasn't writing his history of the war as a losing Athenian. Sure, his portrayal of people he personally interacted with, particularly people he lost battles to, is going to reflect his own interests, but that's not the same as the entire history being a history written by a loser. Even the article's main example, Sima Qian, isn't that simple. The article makes it seem like Sima Qian's history was mainly about the emperor who had him castrated. But his history actually covered more than two thousand years. Whatever is in it regarding that one emperor is only a small part of the whole. (And it's arguable that Sima Qian didn't even end up as a loser in the Chinese court of his own time; after being released from prison he had a highly paid job as a palace eunuch.)
- xerox13ster 2y ago
  Bill Gates (in his younger, athletic days) could leap over an office chair from a standing position without touching the back of the chair, and was very proud of it.
thejohnconway 2y ago
I wonder if this misconception comes from jousting armour, which could be about twice as heavy as battle armour, combined with out-of-shape knights.
- hermitcrab 2y ago
  A lot of these historical inaccuracies can be traced back to the Victorians. Horns on viking helmets, highlanders wearing tartan etc. I wouldn't be surprised if they invented this one too. Also wasn't it shown in a black and white film of one Shakespeare's plays (Henry V?).
- chuckadams 2y ago
  One convenience for mounting horses that jousting fields commonly employed was a high-tech device called stairs. And if there weren't any stairs, well that's what squires are for.
cmiller1 2y ago
My working weight for weighted pull-ups right now is more than a full set of plate weighed.
hermitcrab 2y ago
A knight in plate was carrying a similar amount to a fully laden modern soldier (about 60lbs). On the plus side, the armour's weight is more evenly distributed (a modern soldier has most of it on their back). On the minus side, the knights legs are more encumbered, which makes walking harder and running a lot harder. A knight actually beats a soldier (who is carrying a similar weight and 10 years his junior) across an obstacle course in this short film 'Obstacle Run in Armour': https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAzI1UvlQqw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAzI1UvlQqw

Sander_Marechal 2y ago

Absolutely, see for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-bnM5SuQkI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-bnM5SuQkI

paleotrope 2y ago
The horse isn't going to like that mounting method if the knight has spurs on.

dghf 2y ago

Henry VIII (in his younger, athletic days) could leap into the saddle in full armour without using the stirrups, and was very proud of it.

chuckadams 2y ago
In his later days though... he might have needed that crane ;)
SV_BubbleTime 2y ago
Supreme leader played golf this weekend and got 17 hole-in-ones. Remind me who history is written by.
- waveBidder 2y ago
  The losers. The winners are too busy governing to give a shit. https://scholars-stage.org/history-is-written-by-the-losers/ https://scholars-stage.org/history-is-written-by-the-losers/
  - jollyllama 2y ago
    from the article: > We say that history is written by the winners. That is sometimes true.
  - pdonis 2y ago
    While that article is very interesting, I'm not sure its main argument is actually correct, at least not in the wide, general way it is made. For example, the article says that if Churchill had not been thrown out of power at the end of WW II, his history of that war would never have been written. I'm not sure that's actually true--Churchill had done plenty of writing before that and probably would have found time to write such a history later on anyway. But even if it's true, it doesn't mean that we would be without any history of WW II if Churchill had remained in power. There are plenty of other histories of that war, including ones which take very different viewpoints from Churchill's. But even leaving that aside: yes, Churchill "lost" in the sense that his party lost the election in 1945. But that does not make Churchill a loser in WW II itself, nor does it make his history of that war a history written by a loser. Indeed, his history of WW II, as far as I can tell, says nothing about his loss of the Prime Ministership or the party that defeated him. It talks about his own leadership during the war, which, at least as far as keeping Britain from being conquered and reclaiming Western Europe was concerned, was a victory, not a loss. The example of Thucydides also isn't as simple as the article makes it out to be. Yes, Thucydides was originally an Athenian and fought on the Athenian side, i.e., the side that would eventually lose, in the Peloponnesian War. But Thucydides was exiled from Athens long before that war ended and Athens fell from power--and where did he settle? In the Peloponnese, i.e., in the domain of Sparta. In other words, he wasn't writing his history of the war as a losing Athenian. Sure, his portrayal of people he personally interacted with, particularly people he lost battles to, is going to reflect his own interests, but that's not the same as the entire history being a history written by a loser. Even the article's main example, Sima Qian, isn't that simple. The article makes it seem like Sima Qian's history was mainly about the emperor who had him castrated. But his history actually covered more than two thousand years. Whatever is in it regarding that one emperor is only a small part of the whole. (And it's arguable that Sima Qian didn't even end up as a loser in the Chinese court of his own time; after being released from prison he had a highly paid job as a palace eunuch.)
xerox13ster 2y ago
Bill Gates (in his younger, athletic days) could leap over an office chair from a standing position without touching the back of the chair, and was very proud of it.

thejohnconway 2y ago

I wonder if this misconception comes from jousting armour, which could be about twice as heavy as battle armour, combined with out-of-shape knights.

hermitcrab 2y ago
A lot of these historical inaccuracies can be traced back to the Victorians. Horns on viking helmets, highlanders wearing tartan etc. I wouldn't be surprised if they invented this one too. Also wasn't it shown in a black and white film of one Shakespeare's plays (Henry V?).
chuckadams 2y ago
One convenience for mounting horses that jousting fields commonly employed was a high-tech device called stairs. And if there weren't any stairs, well that's what squires are for.

cmiller1 2y ago

My working weight for weighted pull-ups right now is more than a full set of plate weighed.

hermitcrab 2y ago

A knight in plate was carrying a similar amount to a fully laden modern soldier (about 60lbs). On the plus side, the armour's weight is more evenly distributed (a modern soldier has most of it on their back). On the minus side, the knights legs are more encumbered, which makes walking harder and running a lot harder. A knight actually beats a soldier (who is carrying a similar weight and 10 years his junior) across an obstacle course in this short film 'Obstacle Run in Armour': https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAzI1UvlQqw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAzI1UvlQqw