JebidiahBeetus
67740
1963
24
Cat tax
More meme dumps: https://imgur.com/a/nJX3uln
sircowdog
Armor wont' help you if you get dog-piled.
MimiMaura1996
#2 just become a cop.
KindaCHill
#1 just canning their food to save it for winter
Sandwyrm2
#37 Oh, great. Now they know I'm a werewolf and I know they're both vampires. No basic humans here, sigh.
rosedahhling
Aww I love your cat!! Ans thank you for sharing these fabulous memes
MaleProstateMilker88
2Soon4Baboon
#2 I used to be an adventurer like you!
KsuviKhor
I think I can make an exception, he looks very polite
flipj
Loved all of them, cat especially.
Garmin7
PacManDreaming
#1 Have you ever seen real medieval armor? It looks like it was made for kids. I'm only 5'9" and the overwhelming majority is WAY too small for me.
TheLesserOfTwoWeevils
#28 it isn't the real excalibur, it's not even a fake excalibur. Excalibur wasn't the sword in the stone, (in most legends at least)
RoombaTheAssaultVacuum
#1 numerous reasons. I will illuminate three. 1, armor of that type is fitted to exact specifications. The chances of you fitting it are astronomically low, so it won't protect you at all. 2. Even if it did it takes multiple people helping you several minutes to put it on your body. 3. Zombies are portrayed as faster and stronger because they are humans at their peak. Their brain isn't limiting the strength they could use, rendering that armor less effective still.
Yakeshinu
#21
MrHappySmiles
#1 Till they mob you and lift your codpiece….
SmoeAhsolse
Where is the rest of this fanfic?
reverendbonobo
KalypsoKirin
#1 it takes hours to don and doff, gets hot, slows you down, and occasionally adds grab areas. What you need depends on what kind of zombies, but a bear suit would always be better.
drduffer
#10 Ye Olde Arse Trumpet?
MantisTobagganMD
The Hole in the Wall. From Kingdom Come Deliverance 2.
JustBoone
KindaCHill
#44 https://media4.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTY1YjkxZmJlZGNhcnVsZTN3cHg4cDVhZ3BtdGpmeXBpdHNhdG80aWR6djA0NjhieiZlcD12MV9naWZzX3NlYXJjaCZjdD1n/969ANhdEnVduw/giphy.mp4
OhIfIMust
InfocalypseRising
#1 because it hasn't been properly maintained in centuries, and it's heavy as fuck. if you get tired from running around in metal plate you're just a tin can full of food
Gryphonosiris
It weighs less that the average modern military kit, honestly, and the weight is more evenly spread across the body.
zutty
And its not rated N95 for airborne particulate filtration.
flavivsaetivs
Actually it's been properly conserved. The iron would just be so brittle it would be useless.
It is heavy and you do have to be physically fit, but it doesn't actually slow you down that much.
hwatL4bloopy
#1 thats great and all but heavy and cumbersome. You just need to be bite proof. So maybe just Hema mask and full fencing gear and equestrian Boots.
DiracsDelta
#24 my pet peeve: when they yell “draw” just to have a hundred dudes stand like statues, holding back 80+ pounds on English longbows at full draw, waiting to loose. It’s genuinely insane to anyone who has shot barebow.
flavivsaetivs
Yeah especially considering as time wore on that average draw weight went up. They didn't do a three-stage command sequence they would typically just signal by horn or a single command.
OhIfIMust
Historians hate this one trick!!
grandfalloon
You go around shooting barebow? C'mon, man, you gotta use protection!
FoxPesdassi
Use too MUCH protection, though, and you won't get any infantry.
CJTFMadJack
#1 AFAIK Armour was custom made for whomever ordered it. So it won't fit everybody.
EroticZombiePants
Basically. It's not like a pair of sweats and a t-shirt. It needs to be form-fitting to be its most effective.
OhIfIMust
It would hardly fit *any*body!
flavivsaetivs
That heavily depends on the armor and the wearer. Also doublets do a lot of the heavy lifting with fit.
flavivsaetivs
Yes, a proper suit would be and its cost depended on time period and level of complexity. A modern armor of the time (armor advanced rapidly, literally tiny minutiae of its features can pin it down to a specific timeframe of like 3 years) would typically cost as much as a modern house.
Mass produced armors start appearing in the early 1400s and would be modified upon purchase for a comfortable fit, but most of those armors were parts that didn't need the precision, or were (1/2)
flavivsaetivs
Ordered by city arsenals or castle arsenals or the guilds, owned by the authority but reasonably well fitted to the free townsman that would be called up for feudal obligation, but at that point we're basically solely talking Gauntlets or Coats of Plates.
EntropyReign
#28 no one else has said it yet? okay, guess it's my turn- The sword in the stoneis *sometimes* excalibur, but only in one of the oldest vulgate(?) cycles, usually it's unnamed, breaks in battle, and is replaced with the lady of the lake's gift excalibur. Anyway, the arthur stories are a whole mess of woven together myths, so whatever.
Iwannaseeit
Also being a ruler vs a literal god sword are very different for "whatever the people believe." Like everyone can believe it's Excalibur but that doesn't magically give it Excalibur's properties
SalmonTheWise
Okay, I'm going to say it. #28 is not funny, it's rehashing an old Monty Python bit but completely drained of wit, it adds absolutely nothing to the skit. It's like anti humour. If the miscarriage from Loss survived it would draw webcomics like this.
flavivsaetivs
HOLY SHIT THAT WAS BRUTAL
RollToSaveAgainst
FoxPesdassi
"Clarent" and "Caliburn" are also frequently tossed around as names of Arthur's swords--sometimes Caliburn & Excalibur are the same sword, sometimes not. Excalibur was Arthur's battle-sword (until he got a better one), given to him by the Lady of the Lake, while the sword he pulled from the stone was his "regal" sword, as it symbolized his right to rule.
FoxPesdassi
IMHO, not enough attention is paid to the *anvil* that is also frequently present. What is a king but somebody who can raise an army? And the core of raising an army, is giving them weapons. So a king was, in a sense, somebody who either owned, or could create, large numbers of weapons. The idea of Arthur pulling a sword from a stone *by way of an anvil* is very significant, as Bronze Age smiths LITERALLY pulled swords out of stones:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CZQO8q9DYU (start at 1:00)
rotodisc
#1 because our fat asses aren’t gonna fit in plate armor made when the average human was like 5 feet tall.
Freightshaker
...and it requires 2 other people to put it on.
flavivsaetivs
Average human in the middle ages was typically between 161 to 173cm depending on the grave and the location, typically around 167-168cm. Middle and Upper-class males usually trend taller due to diet.
I read too many bioarchaeological studies.
pgdave
Human heights haven't changed that dramatically
InboxMeYourHDGIFs
Particularly if we compare ourselves to the nobility. The majority of the height difference was caused by poor nutrition while growing up. Nobles, the people that would have been able to afford plate armor, would not have experienced that as much, and record/archeological evidence indicates they were on average taller than non-nobles.
flavivsaetivs
More or less correct (you didn't have to be a noble to afford it, but generally speaking yes most people who wore a full panoply were landed gentry.)
nitemayr
Visit some authentic european castles, either everyone stooped everyplace or we're taller than them, generally.
PacManDreaming
Yes, they have. Real medieval armor looks like it was made for kids. I was shocked at how small most of the armor sets were, when I saw them. I genuinely thought they were small scale reproductions or something. Nope, they were made for people who were much shorter than the average person of today.
pgdave
They're typically displayed...badly, to be honest. They have all of the plates too overlapping on the arms, legs, etc. when in reality they would've been spread out more and only overlapping a little bit, if at all, with chain between/under the plates. The average height of men in Europe in the 1600s was about 5' 9". It was a bit taller before then - heights dropped from about the 13th century to the 18th century.
Agatsu74
#1
Because armored motorcyclist suits and helmets are so much better and easier to find... yet nobody ever seems to be wearing those either.
an0therthr0waway
#9 @yuzupyon ?
yuzupyon
Yesssss
Fyrebaugh
#8 Don't forget Sir Elton John as the bard..
ShadyEsperanto
i lost a lot of interest in this idea now that it's too late to include sir terry pratchett
MantisTobagganMD
He's the Queen, damn you.
Fyrebaugh
I thought Freddie Mercury was the Queen?
draconicus
#24 loose!
KikiArtsNCrafts
I don't remember where I got this from but I thought it was "release" 🤔
AllTheGoodOnesWereGone
The intro to "Gladiator" does it well.
SmashingPlatypus
CommentGuru
Damn! I literally thought of this exact comment then scrolled down and it's on top lol.
3Davideo
Oh yeah, I remember that from that one scene in Game of Thrones!
FoxPesdassi
That's not the only one, either. An earlier scene is with the Night's Watch, atop the Wall.
"Does 'Nock' mean 'Draw'?"
Phoelixx
To nock ones arrow is to slot the prongs over the string
FoxPesdassi
Yup. In the scene, Ser Alliser yells at the (over-eager) men who got the commands confused. Start at 1:07.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_J3xtO-Yos
Skuggen
Must have tagged the wrong image. That one's about archery, not wenches.
Pyrokneticbeavr
No loose until you've finished your knock and draw.
SirSage
She draw on my nock until I loose
Agatsu74
HEYOOOOOOOO!
RunsWithScizrs
*Nock! I've always loved the idea of a trio of hunting dogs being named Nock, Draw, and Loose.
DiracsDelta
And held your bow at draw for a sufficiently dramatic pause.
draracos
That's one of my peeves about it. Do they have any idea how hard it is to keep on target with a warbow at fulldraw?
flavivsaetivs
The actual word is "Tela" ("missiles") in the Roman Military Manuals.
astrangehop
According to a quick search — in Briton even in the 13thcentury middle English it was "knock, draw loose"
flavivsaetivs
Source? As far as I've seen it's always a one-word command, not three-step.
astrangehop
https://catherinehanley.co.uk/historical-background/archery-in-the-thirteenth-century/
flavivsaetivs
Fair enough, that's a pretty reliable source. I'll have to check her citations in her book and get back to you, as the particular sentence isn't referenced there.
PinkyTheUnicorn2
Importantly: There's zero historical record of archers being told to draw, hold that draw, then fire as a single group. It's completely impractical and would tire out your archers tremendously. They were just told to begin shooting, and would do so as quickly and efficiently as they were able until they were told to stop. But the "ready/aim/fire" thing looks and sounds cinematic, so it's the popular conception.
3Davideo
Well we certainly wouldn't expect the Romans to use English words, now would we?
highstream
Every Roman movie I've ever seen used English words.
3Davideo
Even the Passion of the Christ?
highstream
1. It took place in Palestine, not Rome. 2. I've never seen it.
ME2BNS12
#1 Because you need help putting it on and taking it off
SupernaturalReactions
Most of the armour you'll find in Museums were never intended for battle. They were, by and large, decorative pieces created for display only (often designed to smaller specs than those intended for actually use).
Battle armour rarely survived for obvious reasons.
https://media3.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPWE1NzM3M2U1aWlzazlxeWQ4OHhjZHAyNG9iNDAzeWZmbXVwNWQ2Y2ZiMnlrMmZiNyZlcD12MV9naWZzX3NlYXJjaCZjdD1n/BXC0E4uE60RKE/200w.webp
flavivsaetivs
That is absolutely false. The overwhelming majority of museum armors were not only intended for use in combat but were used in combat.
The reason they survive in good condition in the case of full suits like those at Churburg Castle, the KHM in Vienna, or the Royal Armouries is because most of those suits were donated as reliquaries at the end of the wearer's life, and were well preserved first in Basilicas or Monasteries and later stripped down by the Victorians to "clean" them.
flavivsaetivs
Most of our finds of late medieval armor are not archaeological, and many of those that are, are also excellently preserved thanks to the efforts of the excavators and conservators.
SupernaturalReactions
Maybe not 'most', but 'much' of the armour in museums were for display. Most armour and weapons of the mid and early medieval times were lost to the corrosive elements of nature, particularly in the bogs where the slain were often laid to rest wearing their armour.
https://media4.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPWE1NzM3M2U1eWR2dGN5OHpmNm5rNzBhYm95Y2N2aWk1MHo2Yml1bDA4dGJybG10eSZlcD12MV9naWZzX3NlYXJjaCZjdD1n/z2vJ4QZ6l5wk/200w.webp
flavivsaetivs
No. It was not made for display. Yes most armors were lost due to corrosion, but our preserved late medieval armors are due to a mix of changing cultural practices, timeframe (600 years vs 1600 years) storage conditions in monasteries, arsenals, and other facilities, and later conservation practices.
And bog finds survive by the thousands, its why our corpus of Roman swords is so massive, which shows about how much you know.
<- Actual expert in Roman and Byzantine Arms and Armor.
Heffaloo
Also, you have to be kind of the exact size for it to fit.
lpooptoomuch
the prison riot gear in the walking dead was used quite a bit
Radix865
Aside what was already mentioned, it's very loud.
macgerdo
And because starving under a pile of zombies trying to bite you is a stupid idea. I havn't seen zombies starving to ultimate death, anyone?
Leajjes
You too watched Fallout eh?
flavivsaetivs
Because the iron is about 600 years old and is too brittle to use.
someguyinslc
Also, you are considerably slower, so good luck outrunning anything. One bad trip and they swarm you while you roll around trying to stand up and crush you in the suit.
Fantelroy
Knights in armour could get on and off horses
LeMegachonk
Typically with assistance from squires. Who were also required to actually put full plate armor on in the first place.
thekeyofe
While 60-70 pounds of armor is heavy and will slow you down a bit, because it is spread out over your whole body it will slow you down a lot less than if you were wearing a 60-70 pound backpack or whatever. Also, it is quite easy to move around in armor (unless said armor is VERY ill-fitting), meaning that it would be very easy to stand back up after getting tripped.
EroticZombiePants
Maybe, but you are still carrying around 60-70 lbs of extra weight. That's fatiguing no matter how you distribute the weight because your muscles still have to compensate.
macgerdo
They would also use a tank in the post apocalypse and shoot with bazookas.
eetsumkaus
I'd say raiding a museum for random armor made for someone hundreds of years before pretty much ensures it will be a bad fit
flavivsaetivs
The bigger problem is the iron will be too brittle to use.
flavivsaetivs
If it's done properly (meaning you paid 30 grand for it which is at the quality of historical manufacturing) then it should literally be like a second skin in its fit.
SometimesISayHistoryStuff
It's also outrageous overkill. Armor should be as light and maneuverable as it can be, while still adequately defending the wearing from the threats being faced. Zombies do not wield couched lances, pollaxes, crossbows, or aquebuses (I hope). The human jaw can't bite through leather. If you want protection, go raid someplace that sells biker gear.
flavivsaetivs
Every Zombie movie also seems to forget how bloodborne pathogens work and that most of their characters should be infected from inhaling aerosolized blood.
Pancakes15
You can run and roll around in full plate armor. It's incorrect to say that plate armor is not maneuverable.
johnvictor
Compared to padded armour or leather as well as custom fitted typically. Depending on the style of zombie as well, you might not want to be a walking, clanking tank.
lappelduvideonfullblast
He didn't say that - "should be as light and maneuverable as it can be, while still adequately defending the wearing from the threats being faced" And you can be a lot more maneuverable than even the best Greenwich suits in modern stuff that'll provide the same required level of protection.
SometimesISayHistoryStuff
Now that said, with the except of guns, my personal anti-zombie weapon of choice I think would be a mid-sized pollaxe (assuming in a small group that can't equip everyone into a phalanx or something), which could be raided from some museums.
trigonman3
"poleaxe", innit?
SometimesISayHistoryStuff
Short answer: sure. Long answer: technically speaking the etymology of the word pollaxe isn't pole + axe, it's head + axe as in poll tax. However, this was before English spelling was solidified, so it was spelt both ways. Most people don't think of the weapon as a "head axe" they think of it as an axe on a pole, so over time (1650s on) poleaxe became a more dominant spelling. But, I studied Medieval history and had a finicky professor, so I'm used to seeing and writing it as pollaxe.
trigonman3
TIL, thanks!
darthinebriated
Give me a good sized crowbar or Halligan tool. A solid chunk of metal would make a great bludgeon and you can use it to pry open doors for scavenging/escape.
SometimesISayHistoryStuff
I want the reach, personally. But I can definitely see the utility of your choice.
darthinebriated
Thats fair, I think the best option would be to have a mixed group of weapons or using halligans as backup in case of weapon damage or whatever,