Practically Armored Woman
- Thread starter HeroicSpirit
- Start date
dem 4 images clearly are taking inspiration from RL armors unlike some fantasy takes on armor. In that the armor is molded around the breasts WHICH is BAD armor design. Armor is meant to be practical not aesthetic, you only wear aesthetic armor if it's fucking ceremonial armor.
Phasma's armour looks to be the least practical of the bunch though, just looks like plating over a bodysuit. There's nothing protect the vital hinge and joint areas. One shot at the pelvic area and she'll probably lose the leg and most of the hip. Nothing protecting the armpit or the knees. Not to mention the chrome effect just makes her stand out even more. That's just asking for trouble.
Second armour and Cassandra's armours look to be a mix of quilted padding and mail, offering protection from blunt and slashing weapons and keeping a degree on mobility (although most armours allowed for more mobility than we're usually shown).
Brienne's armour is a little tougher to figure out for me, as I never got into GoT, so I don't know if that's metal or leather, seems to be a mix, which would suit a knightly character. Also looks practical compared to some of the armours I've seen in the promotional material. Its definitely armour to protect, not to show off.
My opinion though? I like practical armour. I hate boobplate because it just looks terrible. So yes, I'd to see more practical armour. But that said, it also depends on the context and the overall content.
Second armour and Cassandra's armours look to be a mix of quilted padding and mail, offering protection from blunt and slashing weapons and keeping a degree on mobility (although most armours allowed for more mobility than we're usually shown).
Brienne's armour is a little tougher to figure out for me, as I never got into GoT, so I don't know if that's metal or leather, seems to be a mix, which would suit a knightly character. Also looks practical compared to some of the armours I've seen in the promotional material. Its definitely armour to protect, not to show off.
My opinion though? I like practical armour. I hate boobplate because it just looks terrible. So yes, I'd to see more practical armour. But that said, it also depends on the context and the overall content.
I don't see why a balance can't be struck. Armor that is fantastical while still somewhat grounded or practical in appearance.
It's for stealthing, they get blinded by their own flashlights.
You know, officially speaking (that is, according to the canon novel Phasma), Phasma's armor is supposed to be the same as all other First Order Stormtroopers' armor (which is said to be unisex), but is made from the chrome plating of a starship instead of... whatever it's normally made of. Comparing images of First Order troopers online, it appears that the gaps in the armor are all in the same places. And the chrome honestly makes her stand out less than the bright white storm trooper armor, since it can at least sorta blend in if it reflects nearby trees or whatever (unless you mean she stands out in a crowd of troopers, which is a fair point).
Now, Cardinal, on the other hand—he has a bright red set of (presumably-otherwise-normal) armor, which would be a goddamn nightmare on the field, because red blends in almost no environment. Of course, he wasn't actually a combat trooper, he just trained recruits, where it would make sense for him to have armor that sticks out like a sore thumb so they can all see him
So aside from the fact that her personal armor is made from a material which was very much not intended to be used for personal armor it's no less impractical than any other stormtrooper's armor.
There's ceremonial armor and there's practical armor, the same way that modern-day servicemen have ceremonial uniforms (nice suits, dorky hats, lots of shinies) and their actual work uniforms (bland camouflage). The first image looks unequivocally ceremonial, and any fighter with half a brain wouldn't wear that to battle. The latter might be practical armor, but the embellishments are rather minor; on the other hand, boobplate as it's portrayed would probably put one at a disadvantage in an actual fight for reasons that others have expounded on before.
The issue is that, for obvious reasons, ceremonial armor is just so much cooler looking, so fantasy settings have them ALWAYS wearing it. In a realistic setting (in which women are accepted as warriors), it wouldn't be out of the question for women to have boob-plate on their ceremonial armor, but a woman fighting in that is as unrealistic as a man fighting in his ceremonial armor. Which most fantasy media has.
So for the future, nerds, when people bemoan how stupid and unrealistic boobplate female fantasy armor is, you can point out that all of the armor onscreen is unrealistic in the same fashion, and say it's Technically Not a Sexism Thing™.
Man, now I want to see fantasy show where they have totally unrealistic boobplate female armor... but it's used realistically, and women only wear it as ceremonial armor, using identical or similar armor to men in battle (and men wear practical armor to battle too, not the ceremonial armor bullshit we always see).
Last edited:
Boobplates would be deadly to the woman inside the armor, the divot in the middle could make any force threaten to break the sternum.
Anyway, practical armor is really cool, but I think there's room for flair without adding stupid stuff.
Anyway, practical armor is really cool, but I think there's room for flair without adding stupid stuff.
The boobplate being lethal is a common myth.
They'd be no less impractical than a lot of the ridiculous stuff that was on the armor of kings, generals, and other commanders to make sure they were seen and recognizable.
That being said, I do appreciate armor that's designed for practicality. It lends a different sort of feel to a character, a stronger more serious one. Doesn't mean I don't dislike armor that's also a little showy or is designed to imply certain things without sacrificing effectiveness.
They'd be no less impractical than a lot of the ridiculous stuff that was on the armor of kings, generals, and other commanders to make sure they were seen and recognizable.
That being said, I do appreciate armor that's designed for practicality. It lends a different sort of feel to a character, a stronger more serious one. Doesn't mean I don't dislike armor that's also a little showy or is designed to imply certain things without sacrificing effectiveness.
Yeah, a great way to make yourself a target. I mean, sure, you look great in all that bling, right up until a regiment of crossbowmen see you and decide to do some target practice. Or more likely, you were advertising yourself as a hostage in case the battle went pear shaped - "Hey guys, don't kill me! I have lots of money, as evidenced by me wearing most of it!"
That said, that's even more dangerous. Historically, the Mamluks' power in Egypt and Syria was broken by the French campaign there. The Mamluk horsemen were famous for wearing their treasures as a type of armour. So much so that when Napoleon gave his army to loot the dead, a nearly broken and defeated French army absolutely destroyed a Mamluk army and scared the shit out of reinforcements. While the Mamluks English and Ottoman allies eventually won the campaign, the Mamluks power was broken. All because of bling-armour.
There's a point where marking yourself out from the rank and file gets you a target on your head.
I mean, if you're going full plate where there's space between the person and the armor then there's less problem for sure, but if it's like the Spartan chestplate with abs then you're basically creating a metal wedge aimed at your heart. Most art shows nearly skin-tight armor, and unless those boobplates can jiggle then striking them is gonna hurt, because you're helping to focus the force that a flat or domed armor would disperse.
Although the art normally comes from something that also shows that leather armor is actually useful and padding isn't, and people just wear metal on their flesh, so it's not the best example.
1) Most of human history doesn't have sniper rifles. In the vast majority of conflicts no one is going to actively target the king/general at the back of thousands of trained soldiers over some gold inlays. The Mamluks all had precious metals and gems, and even the lowest soldiers were permitted to loot their bodies, so there was extra incentive to kill as many as possible. But that's a whole different beast than killing a small army because 1 guy at the back is wearing 10x your annual salary. 2) There's always a way to mark leadership out from the rank and file. It's how the rank and file know who to obey. These markings tend to be blatantly visible even from a distance and still exist to this day.
As for the topic in the OP, depends on the setting. If we're talking something a little more realistic, like the GoT tv series, sure basing armor on real practical historical examples makes sense. But if I'm playing some high fantasy game to escape reality for a while I'd rather just suspend my disbelief and enjoy some eye candy than see all the female characters in bulky armor that nearly hides their gender.
Who said anything about sniper rifles? The reason why crossbows were so hated by the nobility across Europe was because they were fast, accurate, armour piercing and easy to use. Longbowmen pretty much trained from childhood to develop their ability with a longbow, we're talking years. You could teach a peasant how to use a crossbow in an afternoon. There are historical records of sieges where crossbowmen were able to pick off defenders with headshots when they were hidden behind parapets. Even the hint of someone wearing more ornate armour would have drawn the attention of every bow or crossbow.
Okay, now the time to post something that you’ll probably outright hate.
Basically, there’s a tumblr blog where people criticize/“fix” impractical woman armor, while at the same time posting examples of sexy male armor. I’ll be posting some of theses “fixes” to see which you prefer, but I doubt that it won’t be the original.
(Putting it in spoilers so you can look at each example separately)
Basically, there’s a tumblr blog where people criticize/“fix” impractical woman armor, while at the same time posting examples of sexy male armor. I’ll be posting some of theses “fixes” to see which you prefer, but I doubt that it won’t be the original.
(Putting it in spoilers so you can look at each example separately)
Original:
Tumblr Redesign:
Tumblr Redesign:
Original:
Tumblr Redesign:
Alternatively...
Tumblr Redesign:
Alternatively...
Original:
Tumblr Redesign:
Tumblr Redesign:
Personally, I like neither. The "redesigns" remind me of Yu-Gi-Oh! card censorship. Whilst I dislike boobplate, filmsy armour and "my muscles are bulletproof" designs, I don't think that covering with more clothing may be the solution, especially in fantasy pieces.
When it comes to RPG games, I only ask for male and female designs not to be blatantly different and, if lack of protection is to be there, giving the player another alternative. Personally, I like the idea of "infusing" pieces you like with "stats" of ones you get later on.
When it comes to RPG games, I only ask for male and female designs not to be blatantly different and, if lack of protection is to be there, giving the player another alternative. Personally, I like the idea of "infusing" pieces you like with "stats" of ones you get later on.
Attention maybe, but not necessarily fire. Crossbows were only accurate up to about 200 yards, with a max range for the best crossbows still not even reaching 500 yards. Put a king at the back of 10,000 men, or even a general sitting behind 2,000, and you'll be lucky if your bolt can get far enough to even vaguely threaten them let alone accurately hit them. Add in a personal guard and the odds of a crossbowman hitting enemy leaders is nearly non-existent no matter how decorative their armor is.
In the magical or sci-fi setting armor is A. Fucking Enchanted to handle a nuke or B. Built in shield generator that can take a antimatter warhead in the face and not have a scratch. That's the main excuse for all these flimsy looking armors from games and series.
Plus, once firearms took over those were even less accurate until rifling. The reason firearms won out was purely because of how cheep it was to make the ammunition. Crossbows were an inferior weapon to longbows for range and rate of fire but, as was said, won out because it was easier to train a user.
The whole bow-to-firearm transition around the world is kinda complex, with a lot of different reasons that varied based on geography, but one thing seems pretty clear: in actual combat, armies with bows did not do well against armies with firearms.
Although the English had laws on the books well into the sixteenth century that helped stimulate longbow training and made longbows relatively cheap, the longbowmen that Henry VIII brought with him on his later continental campaigns were absolutely terrified of fighting armies with firearms. One reason was simply the noise; firearms are loud and scary, and morale is a much bigger factor in war than it often gets credit for. Another was range and muzzle velocity, both of which were significantly lower for the longbow than for the arquebus. Sustained rate of fire was another one (as compared to rate of fire over short intervals). Longbowmen didn't stand much of a chance in a fight against continental mercenaries, and they figured that out pretty quickly. French and English primary sources from the 1540s fighting almost universally agree that English/Welsh longbows were simply not a useful factor in war compared to French firearms.
The reality of sixteenth-century combined-arms warfare meant that sometimes there were situations in which armies that contained longbowmen could still do well - for a time. At the Battle of the Spurs in 1513, longbow fire contributed to confusing the French cavalry, which fell into disorder and then was smashed by an English attack from multiple directions. But technology and the times changed, and French armies began to field more arquebus-armed soldiers. By the 1540s, firearms were so common in the French ranks that the situation described in the previous paragraph became a far more regular occurrence.
English writers tried to keep support up for the longbow as a traditional national weapon, but they had a lot of trouble answering more numerous rival pamphleteers who pointed out the longbow's many technical flaws. Men who had trained as longbowmen for years pointed out that in far less time they could train to hit targets better with an arquebus than they could with a bow. This was not a problem with inadequate numbers of trained longbowmen (a condition rarely adduced in the pamphlets of the time, and often argued against in same). Nor was it a problem of price. Longbows just...kinda...sucked by comparison to gunpowder weapons. Now, the firearms of the sixteenth century were certainly not what we would call accurate, either - but in most useful respects they were technically superior to the longbow, and the tactical results bore that out.
In typical English fashion, the government did not abandon the longbow until 1595, a half-century after it had been fairly conclusively shown to be of limited value in combat. That's the sort of dedication to competence that you'll find in Her Majesty's Government, from Elizabeth I to Elizabeth II.
There were undoubtedly risks to visibility; a very visible leader would draw attention and sometimes fire. The litany of warrior-rulers killed by being warriors is a pretty long one. But there were also benefits. Performance of the role of Being a Martial Leader was important. It buttressed royal and aristocratic legitimacy. It was usually a boon to troop morale to have a visible leader in combat with them; if the leader was a well-liked one, the sight of him in battle might help direct soldiers among the confusion of the melee, or motivate soldiers to fight harder. Fancy uniforms were usually for display, not combat, but depending on the uniform, they were not exactly useless in combat, either.
There's a reason the "empty battlefield" didn't become a thing until smokeless powder and bolt-action rifles in the late nineteenth century. And even after that, people like Patton still insisted on the value of leading visibly from the front, at all levels down to platoon and squad...an argument that's often been disagreed with on sound grounds, but never been discredited.
Although the English had laws on the books well into the sixteenth century that helped stimulate longbow training and made longbows relatively cheap, the longbowmen that Henry VIII brought with him on his later continental campaigns were absolutely terrified of fighting armies with firearms. One reason was simply the noise; firearms are loud and scary, and morale is a much bigger factor in war than it often gets credit for. Another was range and muzzle velocity, both of which were significantly lower for the longbow than for the arquebus. Sustained rate of fire was another one (as compared to rate of fire over short intervals). Longbowmen didn't stand much of a chance in a fight against continental mercenaries, and they figured that out pretty quickly. French and English primary sources from the 1540s fighting almost universally agree that English/Welsh longbows were simply not a useful factor in war compared to French firearms.
The reality of sixteenth-century combined-arms warfare meant that sometimes there were situations in which armies that contained longbowmen could still do well - for a time. At the Battle of the Spurs in 1513, longbow fire contributed to confusing the French cavalry, which fell into disorder and then was smashed by an English attack from multiple directions. But technology and the times changed, and French armies began to field more arquebus-armed soldiers. By the 1540s, firearms were so common in the French ranks that the situation described in the previous paragraph became a far more regular occurrence.
English writers tried to keep support up for the longbow as a traditional national weapon, but they had a lot of trouble answering more numerous rival pamphleteers who pointed out the longbow's many technical flaws. Men who had trained as longbowmen for years pointed out that in far less time they could train to hit targets better with an arquebus than they could with a bow. This was not a problem with inadequate numbers of trained longbowmen (a condition rarely adduced in the pamphlets of the time, and often argued against in same). Nor was it a problem of price. Longbows just...kinda...sucked by comparison to gunpowder weapons. Now, the firearms of the sixteenth century were certainly not what we would call accurate, either - but in most useful respects they were technically superior to the longbow, and the tactical results bore that out.
In typical English fashion, the government did not abandon the longbow until 1595, a half-century after it had been fairly conclusively shown to be of limited value in combat. That's the sort of dedication to competence that you'll find in Her Majesty's Government, from Elizabeth I to Elizabeth II.
In addition to that, even if theoretical accuracy for crossbows and longbows was high, actual marksmanship under combat conditions against maneuvering troops was...not fantastic. Casualties due to missiles were often not super high; even the vaunted longbow forces in the Plantagenet army at Agincourt didn't inflict most of the enemy's losses (that came down to the melee in the mud). Obviously, the longbow wasn't useless or anything. It could do work if it hit, missile fire usually has a negative impact on enemy morale, and avoiding missile fire would exhaust an enemy more quickly than otherwise. But in no way did a visible enemy leader immediately sign a death warrant by entering combat against missile-armed troops.
There were undoubtedly risks to visibility; a very visible leader would draw attention and sometimes fire. The litany of warrior-rulers killed by being warriors is a pretty long one. But there were also benefits. Performance of the role of Being a Martial Leader was important. It buttressed royal and aristocratic legitimacy. It was usually a boon to troop morale to have a visible leader in combat with them; if the leader was a well-liked one, the sight of him in battle might help direct soldiers among the confusion of the melee, or motivate soldiers to fight harder. Fancy uniforms were usually for display, not combat, but depending on the uniform, they were not exactly useless in combat, either.
There's a reason the "empty battlefield" didn't become a thing until smokeless powder and bolt-action rifles in the late nineteenth century. And even after that, people like Patton still insisted on the value of leading visibly from the front, at all levels down to platoon and squad...an argument that's often been disagreed with on sound grounds, but never been discredited.
Big fan.
Titty cups are the silliest popular armor design. At least bikini armor is honest about its intentions.
Titty cups are the silliest popular armor design. At least bikini armor is honest about its intentions.