by Ironlily
Every fake-historian complaining about unrealistic boob armor in fantasy games needs to look up historical codpieces.
Armor was a status symbol and includes sexualized designs to demonstrate the girth of your
penisprowess. If females were in a historical armor setting, I bet you boob armor would have become at least as big a thing as codpieces were.I mean, the ancient Greeks painted abs and male nipples in their armor, lol. Gotta be sexy while fighting a war, at least if you are in the back just commanding people. It’s not like these Kings or Generals really saw someone swing a sword at them or needed actually functional armor. It’s just shiny metal proving you had more money than the other soldiers in many cases.
I both agree and disagree, but I’m not sure which wins out.
Agree because yeah, codpieces were obviously ostentatious and nonfunctional, and why would you not expect women to do the same thing if given the same chance?
On the other hand, the risk imposed by boobplate is more substantial than codpieces. The groom area is not a very good target for opponents because it’s kinda hard to reach and it will harm your target less than the head and chest areas. Boob armour, on the other hand, is right at the spot most thrusts and many cuts are going to be targetted at regardless. The risk of directing glancing blows back in towards your vital organs is greater with boobplate than codpieces.
It’s not like these Kings or Generals really saw someone swing a sword at them or needed actually functional armor
I think this depends on the time period, location, and individual King/General. There’s a reasonably long Wikipedia page on monarchs killed in action. And more might have been injured in combat, or attacked but safe thanks to their armour (and skill). On the other hand, some might be included there mainly because they were overrun and died in action even though they never intended to be in action at all.
That’s why we need boobplate with offensive capabilities.
Machine guns built into the nipple ports.
Ok Dr Evil
I think this depends on the time period, location, and individual King/General.
If you don’t mind, I’ll choose the time period, location, and King to prove my point. Yes, this gets rather specific but… I choose Sigismund II Augustus’s armor as a 15-year-old. King of Poland.
Many kings never took to the battlefield though and only wore their armor in parades and celebrations. I bet you this piece of armor never saw a single battle. No one would seriously put a 15-year-old inexperienced King into a battle.
This king was also rich enough to afford not just one suit of armor, but multiple. There’s a lot of parade armor / ceremonial armor. Now… these don’t have sexualized codpieces on them but the ostentatious / fashion statements they made is obvious. These were clearly designed to make the wearer look good.
Codpieces were either worn by that like ~100 year period where they were lol in fashion, or by “Big Dick” (so to speak) Kings (Henry VIII, and the like). There’s a certain personality type that really just wants to emphasize their penis and they’ll spend good money back then to make a massive codpiece.
Henry VIII saw battle, and likely in that armor. But in his later years, he was a rather sickly man (gout, etc. etc.), so I’m sure his generals made sure he was never really in danger in those later military campaigns.
Given the ceremonial / parade / and even play/costume/theater armors that existed in the Medieval Era, if more females were in power… some fashionista would have looked for ways to accentuate her femininity, much like how Henry VIII or other kings did so with their codpieces to portray manliness. Not necessarily “for battle”, but for a parade, ceremony, or other such event. Not all suits of armor were for battle.
EDIT: As for “battle”, remember that these 1500+ era armor pieces coexisted with Muskets. That meant that if you were hit by a musket while in armor, the armor deformed and pierced you, meaning you’d have to cut the armor off before you can remove the armor piece. There was little military use of armor in this era, a lot of it was just cultural momentum / status symbol purposes from an European perspective. (Armor remained useful vs the Aztecs or other cultures without guns).
So yeah, armor made bullets worse, it was better for the bullet to pass through you than to be stabbed by your own armor while getting shot.
Mono boob plate a la tomb raider I think would be a good compromise between defense and aesthetics. It doesn’t have the massive stress concentration in the middle, but can still accentuate desirable features.
It’s not like these Kings or Generals really saw someone swing a sword at them or needed actually functional armor.
You might be surprised there. Many of the best historical commanders led close enough to be in serious danger. Pelopidas, who led an elite unit of all-male lovers, the Sacred Band, died in combat attempting to slay a prominent foe. Alexander the Great regularly risked his life and was dependent on his personal bodyguard to keep him from getting his ass killed. Caesar famously took up arms several times in the front lines to inspire his men. Even Augustus, who was not a particularly soldierly sort, was wounded in combat.
History is big and it’s hard to generalize.
I’m not saying all kings were like this. I’m saying some kings, and some real armor, was like this. That’s the difference.
And since we have at least an entire century where codpieces were in fashion, it’s possible that that particular era was more about just wearing normal looking armor. Because obviously codpieces are normal in that weird time and likely weren’t seen as a sex symbol. So my statements don’t even generalize to all codpieces.
Many of these commanders had to work their way up the ranks too! They proved themselves in combat. This isnt always true, but many great commanders did.
Armor was a status symbol and includes sexualized designs to demonstrate the girth of your
penisprowess.As I understand it, it was also a sort of advertisement. It was basically saying “It took a lot of money to make this fancy armor, so I’m worth more alive and ransom-able rather then dead on this battlefield”
I mean, there’s tons of games where female characters wear basically metal bikinis that are used in combat. It’s not the same.
Bikini Armor’s equivalence is
Chip-and-DaleChippendales armor. (EDIT: Oh snap, I confused the Disney cartoon with the strippers, lulz)
Boob Armor, IMO, is equivalent to Codpieces. People sexualizing armor, because sex is that much more awesome when its made into metal.
Like, look at this Greek Armor.
Its obviously there to demonstrate masculinity and look sexy on the battlefield (or play-battlefield / parades / ceremonies).
Everything is porn when you look at it just right.
where thighs
An landsknecht
This bothers me more than anything else in this post.
“I know that bulge!”
Well? We’re waiting
I did a google and it sounds like this artist is “vanishlily”, and made the drawing a few months ago.
https://www.pixiv.net/en/users/89235711
I’m not seeing this comic in that artist’s profile. Its possible that this comic / meme came after this artist’s drawings of “Landsknecht girl”.
Yeah, this is someone who has studied Medieval Armor. I can’t say I’m an expert on this but I’m getting vibes of real armor from these drawings, its pretty cool… albeit in anime-style and some exaggerations for artistic effect, but I can kinda-sorta place some of these armor drawings within a time period.
Like I can instantly recognize this as a Knight Templar.
Maybe the boob armor can be defended (nah), but how do you explain the exposed leg, that’s terrible protection. Not to mention that giant sword being held like that
but how do you explain the exposed leg, that’s terrible protection.
I dunno. Go ask the Landsknechts
I think we look back at history and realize these mercenaries had increasingly audacious costumes to stick out, possibly to better make a name of themselves. But… its historical. That’s literally how Landsknechts dressed.
Given the mercenary / audacious ways of fighting, it is quite possible Landsknechts used crazy weapons like Zweihanders to increase their odds of being remembered on the battlefield. They were grossly more skilled than everyone else on the battlefield, so it wasn’t about optimizing fighting anymore, but instead optimizing the chance you’re remembered by the local kings so that you’d get hired in the next fight.
But I’m not a specialist of this era. You’d probably have to ask someone who studied specific guilds / mercenaries back then for more precise details.
Not to mention that giant sword being held like that
Dude, that’s literally a historical Landsknecht pose.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landsknecht
Zweihanders were heavy, people rested them on the shoulder a lot of the time. How else were you supposed to use these things?
EDIT: Note, this Zweihander here is STILL shorter than a typical Pike. So even with a weapon of this size, you’re fighting with less range than the typical 1500s opponent. Bigger == better was a thing at this time.
Zweihanders were only popular for a few dozen years, but their absurd size made them a historical curiosity. Real soldiers (“Double Soldiers”, because they were paid double a regular soldier: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppelsöldner) used them. You needed a sword that big to deal with the increasingly large pikes and halberds of the 1500s, though gunpower was beginning to really take off at this time.
If you’ve got any HEMA friends, I do recommend grabbing a Zweihander from them and feeling it. Its surprisingly nimble, not too heavy. But the bulky size makes it difficult to rest. Its a very fast weapon due to its size and surprisingly light swingweight. I’d say that poleaxes (like Glaives) or other “axe” shapes on the end of a stick felt heavier to me., though they probably weigh about the same. A sword just naturally swings faster due to less weight on the end (though a poleaxe will have more power / armor penetration capabilities).
I dunno friend, if they were just employed to fuck up unruly poor people then I suppose that fit is fine but it’s gotta be really bad in an actual war, right? You mentioned long pikes and halberds, that’s exactly the sort of thing I would not want to meet while unprotected and with a unwieldy weapon. Then again, I’m not a 14th century mercenary and maybe they knew a thing or two.
14th century
16th century and it makes a big difference.
16th century means you are fighting guns on the battlefield, though halberds were still used cause the guns were very slow.
But a bullet will pass through you if you were unarmored. If you had armor, the armor catches the bullet and then stabs you, so now you can’t even remove the armor anymore. So it’s worse… The bullet AND armor is embedded inside you.
Ty for doing the legwork!
