Knights of the Round Table (Armor)?

Question

Was there anything about a knights armor in Arthurian Legends that could distinquish where he was from?

Answer 1

1.We know that the actual era that Arthur would have lived in is sixth century Britain, during the "Dark Ages", after the withdrawal of Rome's garrisons. By that point most of Celtic southern Britain was Romanised, bearing Roman names, wearing Roman fashions, wielding Roman weapons, while preserving their Celtic heritage as much as possible.
2.The heavier plate armor of post 11th century did not exist at this time, and paintings of Arthur made during the medieval era are usually 100% incorrect. The idea that Arthur's knights (a term in itself not period to Arthur's time) jousted in tournaments using lances is five hundred years wrong. Arthurs warriors would certainly have engaged in mock battles, sparring, and generally keeping their skills sharp, but jousting is out of the question as armor of the time could not have stood up to it.
3.Any native leader would have made use of the best armour and weapons available, and in Arthur's case that would be chainmail hauberks of iron rings, Roman lorica segmentata (the classic "Roman" armor made of circular hoops of iron that overlap and encircle the torso like a corset, there is a snowfield pic of me on my 360 page wearing Lorica Segmentata), cuir boulli (oil-hardened) leather armor, the classic Roman shortsword known as the gladius as well as its longer version for calvarymen called the spatha, and the unique Roman spears called pilatum which featured long, thin iron dowel-like shafts mounted to a shorter, heavy wooden grip. The spearhead was tiny and barbed, and would easily penetrate shields. When it did so the weight of the wooden section would cause the thin iron shaft to bend, effectively trapping it in their enemies shield and weighing it down. An opponent who retained his shield was subject to having it pulled this way and that by one Roman while others stepped in to cut him down.
4. It is not likely that Arthur made use of the Roman rectangular shield called the scutum, as it was designed for infantry. His shields would have been of the oval Celtic design, probably center boss type with a single grip that would be held in the fist, made of laminate wood, covered in leather and rimmed in iron, and much easier to use from horseback than the scutum.
5. Also in Arthur's favor would have been the use of horse calvary - necessary in order to move quickly from point to point and attack invaders as their ships drew up on the coast.
6. Although medieval "heraldry" and the use of coats-of-arms did not exist at this time, it had been the practice of the Roman legions to adopt totems for each century or Legion i.e. the Leopards, or the Bears, etc. Given Arthur's "surname", Pendragon, it may be in reference to the possibility that his troops continued the old tradition as "Dragons" - and as leader he would be the Pendragon. Their armor would have probably been as uniform as possible, and they may have made use of the dragon symbol as a badge worn on their armor, painted on their shields, sewn on their cloaks, or even as a crest on their helms, possibly replacing the older Roman horsehair crests.
7.The use of color could also have enhanced their uniformity, esp. if they used the Roman red. Red was used in order to conceal blood from wounds on the battlefield - enemy commanders, watching the battle from a safe distance, might not understand how well their own troops were doing if the Romans didn't appear to be injured and might call a retreat if they thought they were losing. This would probably have been the best distinction on the battlefield, as any foreign invaders of the time tended to have rough, piecemeal armor or at the least did not enforce any uniformity of armor amongst their troops.
8. As to armor showing local origin of any specific warrior, it is not likely. Given the heavy influence of Rome Arthur would have ensured his troops wore uniform armor, and substandard armor would have been upgraded to uniform as soon as possible.
9. Arthur himself, if not derived from one strong leader, may be an amalgamation of several - possibly even Ambrosius, one of the last Roman generals in Britain around the time of the pullout, Uther (if Uther actually existed as a separate person - note how similiar his name is to Arthur, but not unusual for a son to have a name close in structure to his fathers'), or any of several tribal chiefs. Again though, it is not the name that is important as much as the fact that Britain had roughly forty years of peace during the Sixth century, and during those dark times that could only have been achieved by one strong leader.
10. As for "Pendragon" family names were rare at best and unthought of in most cases - it was still easier to simply say, "I am Arthur son of Uther." In more northern climes this was simplified by saying for instance, "I am Arthur Uthersson." Quite a few modern last names are products of occupation or location i.e. Smith, Wright, Greenfield, Baker, Woods, etc. as well as the patriarchal nom de plume such as Johnson, Jackson, Williamson, etc. but were not passed on in families at that time. While John might identify himself as John the Baker, or later just John Baker, his son would not say "I am William Baker." He would, until he found a trade, say "I am William Johns' son" or later, William Johnson. However the odds were high William would indeed be a Baker like his father and so adopt the same name, which in time became standardized as the modern last name, regardless of location, occupation, or fathers' name.With the heavy influence of Rome on sixth century Britain it is far more logical to surmise that "Arthur Pendragon" was a title attached to a name - quite literally, "Arthur chief of the Dragons" With Romes' pullout it would be natural for a Celto-Romano leader to give his troops a sense of identity in a world where they were the only line of defense by giving them a strong moniker such as the Dragons - even more natural given the strong ties to Wales given Camelots' far western location.

(11. I'm not losing any sleep over this, but if you insist on giving a logical, well=thought out answer a thumbs down, you should at least post why you think I'm wrong.)

Answer 2

Your view of the Arthurian knights of the round table is unfortunately wrong. This romanticized version was based upon earlier oral tradition. The Arthurian legend dates back to the early dark ages, before the full metal Armour was developed that you see in movies and on TV. The real Arthur that these legends were based on was probably leader of some small area, no huge castle, no shining Armour. It was probably leather Armour at best and a small walled town or village. You can't believe everything you see on TV. Do a little research on the Arthurian legend and you will see this.

Answer 3

Before I answer your question I have to clarify others'. There never was a real King Arthur. There had been many men named Arthur in the Dark Ages. The name was a common "strong" name that people would give their sons. The historian St. Beade, who lived only 200 years after Arthur supposedly did, never mentions the name. We don't have a full treatment of Arthur until Geoffrey of Monmouth's History of the Kings of England in the tenth century (a lot of older documents have been lost). This is mostly political propaganda encouraging the Welsh to support their new Norman oppressors.

No armor ever denoted a familial name or homeland identity, but Arthur, starting with Geoffrey and continuing ever since, faught under the banner of a red dragon on a green field (not unlike the flag of Wales nowadays). This represented his family, Pendragon, and was inherited from his father, Uther. Some

Answer 4

The Knights of the Round Table were King Aurthor's best Knight's. They all sat at a round table so there would be no head, no foot, all were equal in discussion including the King. Their mission was to protect Camelot & it's people along with establishing laws. A basic government. Loyalty to the King & his crown were crucial to the knights.

Answer 5

Assuming that you are basing your question on the portrait painted in "L.Morte d'Arthur" by Malory, I would say no. Arms and armour do not tend to be regionally distinctive within Western Europe, although some types of helm etc, were more popular in some areas than others, one might find them anywhere.

However, the coats of arms supposedly borne by the Knights were individual, and often gave indications of where they were from.

If you are asking about the early legends, then it is likely that there would have been great local variation. The Dark Ages were a period of great regionalism and limited trade -- unlike the 15th Century picture painted in Malory.

Answer 6

The earliest tales about King Arthur said he lived in the 6th Century CE, but Malory in his "Le Morte d'Arthur" portrayed Arthur and his knights in armor of the 15th Century and behaving like men of that period. Painting usually show that period of armor. There was no great difference in armor in the time of the original Arthur. It was much simpler than what is usually pictured, since it was 900 years earlier.