I know this seems like a random and pointless detail, but I don’t like the fact that most museums seem to display suits of armour up on pedestals, instead of having them stand on the ground level with the viewers. I wish they would just have the armours standing on the floor with nothing underneath them to make them appear taller. I assume they probably put them on raised platforms because they think it’s better to have them look imposing and “larger than life,” but somehow I feel like this is a historical cheat. I would rather be able to stand next to them and know exactly how tall the wearer would have stood, if he were actually around today (or if I were transported back in time.) Despite the common misconception, people were not all dwarves in the pre-modern era, and there was a wide range of heights just like there is today. So I think it would be much more interesting to be able to get a sense of how tall all of the different armours would have stood - instead of having them up on pedestals that immediately make them taller than most people.
since most all survivng suits were either demo models or ceremonial armor made for youths it is sort of silly … there are very few adult pieces [mostly fairly late and iether jousting armor or adult gifted ceremonial armor - best example of that is a full maximillian plate gifted to Henry 8th that is in the Tower museum IIRC]
That matter has been discussed on the boards before …and then there is the occasional ‘forgery’ made up of slapping extant pieces together that were not made as a single suit, and displayed as such, and at least one modern suit made by a modern armorer that found its way into a museum [the guy found his makers mark on it]
I’m fairly sure that armours for children are a distinct minority of all extant armours, although you are right that many of them are tournament harnesses as opposed to armours that saw combat. Some armouries in Europe, such as the Landeszeughaus in Graz, have gigantic collections of blackened munitions-grade armours from the Thirty Years’ War era, but American museums like the Met mostly have armours that were made for show.
In either case I think they should be placed on the ground and not on pedestals. I would really rather get to stand next to them and feel like I was standing next to a real person wearing the armour, and not some kind of statue.
I work in a museum though we don’t have any suits of armor. How do you know those suits of armor are specifically on pedestals to make them seem more imposing? Most of the displays of armor I’ve seen were designed to make sure nobody would, or, ideally, could touch it. This applies to almost any artifact on display so we tend to put things on pedestals and surround them with plastic whenever possible.
Personally I don’t think having suits of armor on pedestals detracts from the exhibit. We’re only talking about a few inches here and there not a few feet.
Odesio
The armours at many museums are surrounded by glass cases so nobody is going to touch them anyway. That was how it was at the Met. And it’s more than just a few inches there. This, for instance, is really not how it should be. I don’t know how tall that man is - maybe he’s less than average height - but clearly if that armour were taken off the pedestal, the guy would be only a little bit shorter than the armour. Instead it looks about a foot and a half taller than him, not counting the crest.
Have you considered the possibility that the base of the frame the armor rests upon is below the surface of the pedestal? That this adds stability to the armor while at the same time allowing for a better overall presentation?
Maybe they do it for better visibility in case the museum is crowded? I know I hate going into a museum where everything is placed so low and so close that you pretty much have to huddle over it to get a good look, which limits practical viewing to one person at a time.
The few times I’ve been in museums that had full suits of armor, they seemed to be pretty popular.
