Do you subscribe to the pop-culture notion that female armor should be formed for their breasts, why/why not?
>>47726624
>Do you subscribe to the pop-culture notion that female armor should be formed for their breasts
If the armor is intended to be ceremonial yet still functional, then there's nothing wrong with it.
If the armor is intended to be 100% brute functional with no embellishments of any kind, then it's a little odd, but still not unreasonable.
Believe it or not, when your armor is made of extremely high-quality materials, having formed breasts on the plate doesn't reduce the effectiveness of the armor by much of a practical degree to matter, unless they're hyper-exaggerated.
Also, going by the enlarged cod pieces, armored ab muscles, and other embellishments men have added to armor over the years (on the more ceremonial pieces, albeit, but the fact remains) it's not unrealistic that a female warrior would glorify her own female form as men glorify the male form.
TL;DR It's really not that important unless your armor is shitty to begin with, and drawbacks only arise if the breasts are hyper-exaggerated to the point of ridiculouslness.
>>47726624
Depends. Directing blows to the sternum is stupid, but there's plenty of room for this in armor meant for ceremony or display. Say, for nobility, parade armor, or the surprising number of historical spells that used breast plates.
On the flip side, if being a warrior is abnormal or taboo for women, they'd likely prefer to look like a man. Consider exaggerated codpieces instead.
>>47726624
> female warriors in any setting
> complains about realism
>>47726692
>> female warriors in any setting
It's entirely possible the nation in question has such a low amount of manpower that they're forced to use pretty much anybody they can get ahold of to fight, and mercenaries may not be a viable option.
Female warriors aren't "ideal," but a woman hitting you in the face with an ax is still gonna kill you pretty dead if you don't have many alternatives available.I'm fully aware of the fact that women weren't used in combat because of the value of the uterus, but that's not what we're arguing here
>>47726624
I subscribe to the notion that any armour worth wearing is too heavy for women to wear
>>47726686
having the bulge infront makes it super easy to cut your throat as you swing in, the armor guides to sword.
you don't know what you're talking about.
>>47726624
Any woman who chooses to be a warrior is probably mad and nasty enough to be able to wear whatever she damn pleases.
That aside, when I'm masturbating, I like boobplates. So when I hear people insisting on boobplates, I assume they are trying to masturbate.
>>47726692
At least at sea it was more common than you'd think. Both because men wanted contact with women and because women who snuck aboard were difficult to discharge. There are a few notable examples of women taking command of ships or navigating them when their captains/husbands died, and a few others who excelled in the menial labor and combat.
On land you're less likely to see women in professional service, but there were plenty of women who fought. You're especially likely to see this in groups that settle as they conquer. Nomads and swiddeners and such. They tend to take the whole damn family with them.
>>47726731
If society that doesn't have enough manpower would not be a bellicose one. No men, very likely no fighting.
>>47726692
>vikings never had female warriors
>germans never had female warriors
>the soviet union never had female warriors
>>47726761
?????
>>47726731
>Female warriors aren't "ideal,"
depends entirely on their training.
No, because flat is sexier.
>>47726795
First two accounts were such a tiny minority. The second is in a modern setting, OP is clearly describing a medieval or early modem one with armour. Obviously even a child can use a gun.
>>47726761
If it's too heavy for a woman to wear, it's too heavy for you too.
>>47726778
>no men, very likely no fighting
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah....ha
>>47726778
It's not a matter of societies. Any front could be somebody's home front. If the enemy is at the gate you can't always wait for reinforcements. Especially if you sent your guys to engage elsewhere or had a plague or whatever. Women being the B-team hardly means they never fought.
>>47726827
>>47726835
doesn't matter, the point is, that if a people/nation wanted to incorporate females as warriors they could.
saying it's unrealistic just because they're females and that "minority" is any evidence that they couldn't be used for an armed for is ludicrous.
>>47726624
Yes.
Because it's hot.
And assuming we have commonplace female warriors in the first place, which puts autistic "muh realism" excuse for nerd rage into garbage, if male armor had exaggerated codpiece, there's no reason for female armor to not also have ornamental tits.
>>47726778
>If society that doesn't have enough manpower would not be a bellicose one
Not necessarily, especially if they're in a strategically important location that merits constant defense, and that's not including cultural reasons and sheer human stubbornness.you're generally right, but it's entirely plausible that a low-manpower country would need to field troops for self-defense purposes
>>47726771
>what is a gorget, literally worn by any knight with any sense
>>47726880
>if male armor had exaggerated codpiece, there's no reason for female armor to not also have ornamental tits.
read the thread
>>47726857
Jesus Christ fine if you really want to pick the most obscure and unlikely scenario yes maybe the football is on and all the men are at the pub and the women have to kill the goblins at the gates but in most cases if you're talking about a professional army it would not have women in it. OP is talking about armour, the B-team would have whatever armour they got what it looked like would be irrelevant if they got any armour at all.
>>47726889
>le guides the blade meme
no thanks.
>>47726731
>It's entirely possible the nation in question has such a low amount of manpower
Such happened in history. These nations just rolled over and lost.
>>47726898
This applies to the about comments where apparently because a few women helped Viking raids they were this Amazonian force.
>>47726915
Exactly.
>>47726771
Jesus, just have a blade guard collar, dumbass.
>>47726898
>Battle of Helm's Deep shit is the most obscure scenario
>Raiders picked only the best defended cities to siege
>Your fantasy setting uses standing armies as its bread and butter
>The vast majority of armor isn't B-team armor, it's the show pieces that don't get melted down
>>47726888
>what is a gorget, literally worn by any knight with any sense
>instead of cutting your throat it will be totally crushed by the force of the impact
>>47726624
No.
Boobplate catch weapons and focus the energy to a single point.
>>47726913
>reasonable, rational argument
>LE MEME
>>47726624
Form fitting armor might be nice to look at, but from a realistic perspective, why.
Why.
Traditional breastplates have proven to fit both men and women throughout history just fine. The singular reason boob plate would be worn is purely for the visual appeal. Sure, it can look really cool or really silly, but it's purely a design choice. That being said, I'm not entirely convinced that boob plate would be a terrible design choice from a practical perspective. If a sword is redirected to your sternum, it's still hitting solid metal. It won't go through. Now, if were talking about "armor" that reveals plenty of skin, then you have other problems to worry about.
Pic related would be fine.
>>47726922
The Middle Ages were famous for battles between armed male soldiers versus female militias, levied after their men got killed in previous battles.
>actually they werent
>>47726933
>implying that isn't a problem faced by literally anybody getting hit in the chest with a fucking sword, especially since most male armor still had curved chest plates that deflected the blow away from the chest
>>47726924
that's rude.
>>47726624
There should be a bit of both, to be honest. Historically there was always a lot of impractical armor thrown in with the practical stuff.
Now, chain mail bikinis on the other hand are just retarded.
>>47726955
He's got a point though. If you're already shelling out for custom-fit armor, a blade guard is something absolutely sensible that pretty much any male knight would have anyway. Why would a female knight NOT have one, when most of her male peers would?
>>47726932
Actually yes Helms Deep is pretty obscure, not many societies have an enormous siege fortress down the road. Raiders did pick soft targets and guess what, they usually crumbled like a fucking damp biscuit, people would flee before they fought if there were no fighting age men.
>>47726945
Except it's not. Just because it's regurgitated in every single thread doesn't make your idea of a fight any closer to being true.
And even if boobplate was indeed a design flaw, that's not something that would stop an armorer from turning a job away.
>>47726947
More importantly: how many women would be comfortable with wearing polished metal boobs around? They would get mocked at every street corner.
>>47726947
no because it would still be pushed towards the throat as it slides up the metal and as pointed out before, even if it hit metal it would still damaged the throat and the throat is considerably less damage resistance than your torso, which also has a larger surface area to deal with the blow.
also capes are a bad idea.
>>47726935
That ultimately doesn't matter much unless your armor is already terrible quality. It's still going to stop the majority of hits, unless you're hit by a blunt-force weapon (like a maul or mace) at which point it doesn't matter anyway because those weapons are designed to ring your bell inside of your armor rather than reliably break your armor.
I think you grossly underestimate how strong plate armor actually is, especially in the later years when metallurgy techniques grew rapidly.
>>47726994
Men didn't seem to mind having a big metal dick bulge on their armor.
>>47726977
People would flee before they fought, period.
It requires discipline and a leader to fight, that can be achieved regardless of the demographics of a society.
>>47726947
>Why.
Because a woman wearing a traditional set of armour is actually crossdressing?
ITT A bloo bloo bloo muh perfect adherence to historical realism how dare people try to have female adventurers or soldiers
If my fantasy world doesn't exactly mirror medieval Europe how am I supposed to be immersed a bloo bloo bloo bloo
>>47726981
look it up if you don't believe the thread
>>47727006
Even sharp weapons would ring your bell. If you take a hard enough hit to the chest you're going to have trouble breathing for a while. Which is basically a death sentence on the battlefield.
Energy still transfers, even if the armor doesn't break.
For a fantasy RPG? I probably wouldn't put it in, myself, but I wouldn't take issue if one of the players specified it. It'd depend on the mood, I guess, if we were being more silly or something.
>>47726945
>reasonable, rational argument
That ignores the fact that this very problem can be very, very easily averted by something as simple as a cheap blade guard and gorget, which male knights wore anyway.
>>47727012
Wasn't that because people have syphilis or something? Their cocks were painful to touch.
>>47727044
It's usually just a hatch so you can have a slash without taking the armour off.
>>47726692
>casual misogyny
>>47726624
I subscribe to the notion that the entire argument is idiotic.
If it offends you, don't support products that feature or use it.
Bam, problem solved.
Arguing that everyone should conform to your agenda is patently selfish and douchbaggery to the highest order.
>>47727026
IDK, armor is pretty gender neutral, since it is occupational dressing. It's like saying a woman wearing a hard hat and an orange reflective vest is cross dressing.
>>47727068
Bro don't even bother, the William sisters got shreket by a rank 200+ male players. Women just can't build muscle like a man.
>>47727032
>If you take a hard enough hit to the chest you're going to have trouble breathing for a while. Which is basically a death sentence on the battlefield.
A hit with a weapon strong enough to do that while getting through all that armor isn't going to be diverted much by "standard" plate as opposed to "Boob plate," unless it's a dead-on hit in the dead center of the sternum, and a hit like that is going to ring ANYBODIES bell in even the best armor.
This is all assuming we're talking about hyper-exaggerated boob plate, too, instead of something closer to pic related.
>>47727012
except that doesn't redirect the blow to a vital part, if anything that directs it away from a vital part
>>47727090
Is your pic related even boobplate?
I wouldn't count it as such. It's more of a stylized chest piece, in my opinion.
>>47727006
>That ultimately doesn't matter much unless your armor is already terrible quality
that's not the point, the point is its a design flaw that doesn't need to be there, regardless of armor quality
>>47727108
I would consider it to be "boobplate," as it is plate armor that is stylized to resemble female breasts on a female warrior.
I also have no problem with boobplate as long as it's within reason (Sisters of Battle are a little too much for me, but then again they're basically wearing walking tank armor in-fluff, so it's a bit of a moot point for them).
>>47727084
What part of that makes you stronger than they are? I bet you have high dreams and fancy yourself quite a warrior, and likely can't even lift your own weight above your head.
Females never really fight anyways, so it doesn't really matter.
>>47727127
But it's basically flat. There's no distinct "boob" part of that armor.
>>47727137
Right you ruined it with the obvious troll overtone, kindly fuck off back to /pol/.
>>47727127
>as it is plate armor that is stylized to resemble female breasts
Not him and not really seeing it...
>>47727123
>that's not the point, the point is its a design flaw that doesn't need to be there
Ignoring the fact that most male armor also contained what we would consider major design flaws, the fact remains that a simple gorget/blade guard will mitigate any redirections from the chest (which is a very rare occurrence to begin with, given how you'd have to uppercut a person at just the right angle to hit the plate in such a way as to deflect upwards) and the design flaw is minimal enough to not ultimately matter at the practical level.
Point is, it's not an unreasonable or unrealistic request for a female warrior to have armor that accents the female form while retaining a large degree of protection in the process.
>>47727137
I'm curious, what point do you think you're actually making?
>>47727167
>gets told
>falsefalgs
>>47727068
>>47727043
read the thread
>>47727167
Wow, going for the pre-emptive "you're a troll, not me" tactic.
Seriously though. If you're going to argue that women warriors are not realistic, you're going to have to eradicate all male soldiers who don't reach the level of physical fitness that women can achieve, and that's a lot of male soldiers.
Women may not be able to get as strong as men can get, and on average they might be weaker, but the outlying women easily exceed the fitness of an average warrior.
>>47727071
>prejudice: the post
>>47727219
That being a pencil-armed armchair-warrior doesn't really qualify you as the final word on strength and fitness.
>>47727220
>>47727256
When you have to rely on personal insults in a debate you've already lost.
>>47727157
no, because if that girl would be wearing flat armor, she would be wearing regular armor and not have armor shaped to her breasts
Someone please post the picture of a Roman soldier with ab armour and skirt being called unrealistic.
>>47727243
Having re-read the thread, what point are you trying to make, exactly? Just saying "read the thread" isn't an argument.
>>47727299
You've earned the insults. They're just extra spice to the arguments as to why you're an idiot.
>>47727302
But her chest piece is flat.
Or at least not anymore bulged out than a dude's chest piece. It looks more like pec muscles to me frankly.
>>47727259
>sjw: the post
Greentexting is fun!
But please, educate us on how that poster is wrong.
>>47727332
Yesssss Yessss let the butt hurt flow through you...
>>47727285
>>47727256
Ah, you're an idiot. Gotcha.
>>47726624
Well, realistic armor is already formed by women's breasts. The frontal bulge plate cuirasses have would accommodate 99% of all women. The empty space, as for men, would be padded.
I think armor can be womanly without boobplate.
>>47727192
>Ignoring the fact that most male armor also contained what we would consider major design flaws
which was?
>the fact remains that a simple gorget/blade guard will mitigate any redirections from the chest
this has been addressed in an earlier post
>unrealistic request
it is, because no armor is like that, there isn't any male of female armor in real life, there's just armor. even modern military uniforms don't have breast sticking out, not because there's a danger for swords coming their way but because the breasts simply are in the way.
>>47727355
Oh, I lucked out. I was wondering when you were going to reveal you're just a sixteen-year old troll.
Thank god you did it so early so that everyone can just dismiss you and we can carry on with our day.
>>47727232
Anybody that has ever used nailpaint knows how easy it comes off as soon as you get your hands into ANYTHING
And the hair is just a bullseye for snipers
>>47727357
*for* women's breasts
>>47727357
OMG, that armor directs all the force of incoming weapons directly into the midsection what a terrible and impractical design.
>>47727310
not an argument, don't feel like repeating what's already there. >>47726933
>>47727407
And you missed the part about a blade guard, which is a common part of gorgets that, again, the majority of knights wore anyway.
>>47727356
Alright, once last bite.
Let me know how you plan to argue around-
>Women may not be able to get as strong as men can get, and on average they might be weaker, but the outlying women easily exceed the fitness of an average warrior.
>>47727333
fair enough 333
As said by others before me: If it's ceremonial / dress armor I'm fine with it, but if it's combat dress on someone we're meant to take seriously their addition makes little sense in the best of circumstances and may very well be detrimental in the worst (sacrificing armor quality, or requiring additional skills / material / time to be smithed, or so-on).
>>47726835
And this matters, why? The point being contested was "Durrhurr wimminz? Fighting at all? Lol nevah".
Historically women have been involved in warfare - as combatants - since ancient times. They rarely made up either the majority or a 50:50 split, but going as far back as the 15th Century BC (possibly earlier, depending on where you swing in the Ahhotep I and II debates) there's records of established and successful female soldiers who fought alongside troops (specific example being Hatshepsut, Fifth Pharaoh of the 18th Dynasty).
Come 13th Century BC we hit Lady Fu Hao, as well as the first mostly-confirmed instances of women cross-dressing in Western (well, European) armies to participate in war. And the number of named, clearly non-mythical female warriors / generals only grows as you move out of the Ancient World and move into the post-Classical era.
>>47727374
Look friend you're either
a) trying to call us misogynists on the internet, this is like swimming against the tide and is a huge waste of time
b) you're just a troll
either way you're wasting your life. Go outside, I'm here to talk about tg.
>>47727357
is your dick on your knees too?
>>47727420
They're much weaker though, seriously she might look impressive deadlifting weights but I'm not kidding when the average guy could beat her in an arm wrestling competition.
>>47727374
>>47727434
just kiss already
>>47727417
>instead of cutting your throat it will be totally crushed by the force of the impact
>>47727459
Thank you. I needed to make sure that you really are an idiot.
There's really nothing else except to call you a misogynist as well, which is sad, because that's a word that gets misused too often these days. I'm just glad it's being used correctly this once.
>>47727461
Sorry fellow fa/tg/uys, it looks like I'm crashing this thread with no survivors.
>>47727492
> calling me an idiot
But that's not an argument?
>>47727475
...do you know what a blade guard is, anon? It's a v-shaped piece of metal on the breastplate that stops a blade from traveling upwards into the neck.
>>47727492
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aS82EWcbGRE
>>47727420
I'm a different guy, but it's hilarious that you're comparing a strawman of what you think one guy's real life capabilities are and comparing them to what "women can achieve".
You do realize that outside of severe hormone imbalances, if you put practically any man and any woman through the exact same workout routine for the same amount of time, he will gain more strength and endurance. Period.
>>47727459
Average (1st world) guy's deadlift capability is somewhere around ~155lbs. That's… a bit more than 155lbs. 161kg, going by records I'm finding. Deadlifting muscles are not a 1:1 crossover with the those used in arm-wrestling, no, but I'm fairly certain that a ~x2.3 lift advantage would be enough to overcome this "deficiency".
>>47727492
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BF3Vm674KWQ
'Pencil arm' does pretty well doesn't he?
>>47726624
http://l-clausewitz.livejournal.com/384382.html
>In conclusion, a female warrior who wants to wear a solid breastplate isn't going to need anything more than a male breastplate sized for a man of about the same height as her.
>>47726692
/thread lol, you virgins need to read some history books. Women don't fight unless they absolutely have to.
>>47727554
>>47727583
That girl can barely deadlift half of what the strongest women can deadlift.
>>47726624
If the armour is to be functional, then fuck no, no armoured tits
If the armour is to be ceremonial, then I guess this is a ceremony from the Kingdom of Lewd, so no, fuck this too.
>>47727582
I'm not sure you even know what a deadlift is and you're calling into question other people know about strength and fitness?
>>47727712
Noice so every women is the strongest woman alive... well phew... cheers glad I know that now. Again exceptions are not the rule.
>>47727712
Which is what, like 1/3 of what the strongest men can deadlift?
>>47727096
>what are femoral arteries
>>47727568
The whole origin of this argument was "Lol wimminz in warfare. Such joke. Much laffs". Problem being that while, yes, women on average typically do not match the average strength of a male combatant, not only are they capable of reaching such conditions naturally but there's historic precedent going back /over three thousand years/ of women fighting on the front lines with men and not causing the whole line to collapse due to their waif-ish fragility.
If you pick 100 women and 100 men at random from a large crowd you'll likely get a hell of a lot more potential combatants of the male demographic than the female one. That's not under debate. What is under debate is the idea that not only would none of those women be viable combatants. That debate has then further evolved so as to now be about whether - even if in physically tip-top, Olympian athlete shape (for some reason Olympians are in this crowd, just roll with it) - any of those women could potentially, possibly, kinda be comparable or better than any of the non-twig males. Of which the answer should clearly be "Yes, the woman who could smack you with a street sign like an oversized paddle can probably be considered a physical match for guys who can't", but instead there's a distressing amount of "*mumble grumble* biotruffs *grumble grumble* not as strong as she looks". A 161kg deadlift is… kind of above the male average. Especially for non-bodybuilders.
>>47727285
you're comparing the worlds strongest women to a bunch of nerds, obviously shes more fit. compare her to any professional male athlete and see how she stacks up, doesn't even have to be a body builder.
>>47727735
Please, don't strawman up some argument.
>Women may not be able to get as strong as men can get, and on average they might be weaker, but the outlying women easily exceed the fitness of an average warrior.
A female warrior is hardly unrealistic, if the strongest women are stronger than the average warrior.
>>47727744
Where are these examples of women on the front line? A few burial sites or unspecified claims of Greek 'historians' isn't really good evidence.
>>47727766
You don't need to be the strongest of the strong to be a soldier.
>>47727780
We've gone over all this, on generalities they would not be in the army so we started dealing with specifics and again it's unlikely unless we're talking about one offs or exceptional circumstances of physical fitness.
>>47726686
Why is the first response always the best?
>>47727724
Yeah, I'll admit I know pretty much shit about physical fitness terms and training and whatnot. But you know what I have? Enough of a fucking brain to be able to search up averages, entry requirements, records, and so-on for strength requirements / feats in assorted sporting events and law enforcement / military branches and whatnot.
And you know what all of them say? That a 161kg Clean and Jerk is fucking /well/ above not only what the average untrained joe-schmoe is capable of, but what is expected of the average casual weight lifter, military / law enforcement professional, etcetera.
Likewise when my "question(ing) other people know(ledge) about strength and fitness" is on the subject of "Is women fighting in armor and on the front lines realistic", and we have historical records going back before the Helenistic Era saying "Yes, it's so realistic it's already been happening for at least 3,500 years", I'm pretty sure I'm justified in saying "lol gurl fighters amirite" is either min-effort shitposting / trolling or displays a gross lack of knowledge of history and capability.
>>47727793
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_warfare_and_the_military_in_the_19th_century
Just a random Wikipedia article. There are four more pages. And remember: those are those that were actually documented.
>>47727826
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Dieulafoy
Why are French gals so based all the time?
>>47727813
I'm still waiting for why it's unrealistic.
Unlikely, certainly, impractical, likely, but you still need to provide me with something that makes it unrealistic.
A woman can achieve a level of strength and fitness above that of an average warrior. That's the major hurdle to leap over, the hard limit that makes it realistic or not.
Everything else is just culture and chance.
>>47726624
Yes I do, so on the battlefield females can be identified so as to avoid them taking any responsibility and distinguishing them so adversaries will know to go easy. All while still allowing them to feel powerful and independent.
>>47726624
The only thing that looks really dumb if it has individual lumps for the breasts to fit into.
>>47726624
Yes, because it's better looking.
>>47727876
Sports bra which cup each breast independantly are better than those which squash everything together though!
>>47727012
>>47727096
Not to mention is was originally designed with the intention of allowing soldiers to piss during a battle while staying within the armor rather than having to take it all off and back on with the help of a squire, or trickle down your leg to puddle in a boot. Ostentatious tho it may be.
Women never had to breast feed during a battle that I know of. Intriguing tho it may be
>>47727897
I wonder how you know this
>>47726624
>Pop-culture notion
Are you saying it's a... Social Construct, anonkun?
>>47727398
No it doesn't you fucking idiot.
>>47727915
I don't know what kind of people could possibly know such facts either.
>>47727793
Well, among Hatshepsut's various inscriptions and morals there's several that pin her as being a front-line general (whilst riding on a war chariot, no less) during at least one campaign in Nubia. There's also Artemisia I of Caria, who was a Persian naval commander at a time wherein "naval battles" could best be summed up as "Ram them and board".
>>47727864
>on the battlefield
>females can be identified so as to avoid them taking any responsibility
>battlefield females can be identified so as to avoid them taking any responsibility
Whew, lad. You seem to have a slanted idea of how warfare works.
>>47727941
it's okay, there's plenty of transfolks in here
>>47726692
For fuck's sake, just assume that the strength differences between men and women are lessened in the setting.
>>47727862
>a woman
Yeah, they really can't. That's the whole thing that pisses people off about the dual fitness requirements.
A minority of women can, but that's an entirely different statement.
>>47727963
>>47727977
>Yeah, they really can't.
>women can't
>A minority of women can
Do you enjoy being a retard or something?
>>47727941
beside liar none else who visits /tg/ can have such knowledge
>>47727993
What he's trying to say is not just "any" woman can.
What he's failing to realize is not just "any" man can either.
So yes, you can call him a retard.
>>47727420
How is that relevant to realism. Why are you arguing that some super determined outlier can be a single female soldier in an entire army and that's justification for it being totally realistic and reasonable? How is it an argument that throughout all of documented human history, rife with constant warfare, you are able to dig up like a dozen women warriors and think that is relevant.
You draft an army, you round up some conscripts, you levy the peasants. Your totally bog standard average farmhand male is going to be perfectly adequate for war and will account for the vast majority/entirety of your army. Then you got like 3 butch chicks that work out a lot in secret that made the cut reaching the level of just some average guy. That's your justification here.
>>47727797
actually yea you do. the standards have been lowered in recent years so women can join the army, but once upon a time they were the peak the human physique.
not power strength just overall strength. a pro weightlifter is going to be able to lift more weights than anyone. the fitness standards of the NFL and other pro leagues are similar to that of the army.
>>47726624
>tfw normal plate is formed for my breasts
>>47727973
My favorite thread on /tg/ was a 40K one a couple of months ago wherein multiple posters - no exaggeration - bitched that the Officio Assassinorum was run by a bunch of incompetent politically-correct tumblrinas because they let GUUUUURLZ into the Assassin Temples.
/tg/ has a dreadfully thin skin when it comes to the subject of women in history and fantasy sometimes.
>>47728047
>actually yea you do.
No. You really don't. I'm not saying Special Forces Operating Operator. I'm saying "a" soldier. Not chair force, just infantry.
>>47728047
>the fitness standards of the NFL and other pro leagues are similar to that of the army.
Haha. Hahahahaha. Okay, sure. Hahahahahaha.
>>47727826
We're talking about armour you goon, again I addressed this before, plenty of women in the later modern and post modern period when firearms are common.
people in this thread forget that women have been suppressed for millenniums and haven't been seen as mens equal for most of history
Sexual Dimorphism.
>>47727081
>IDK, armor is pretty gender neutral
Something that was usually explicitly imitating general male fashion of its period is gender neutral?
>>47728084
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_post-classical_warfare
>>47728039
>How is that relevant to realism.
>>47726692
>female warriors in any setting
>complains about realism
Unlike dogs, (most) posters can look up. The realism debate was not sparked about how realistic it is to have /an appreciable ratio/ of combatants being female soldiers, but females being soldiers /whatsoever/. Of which, even in this post, it's readily admitted "Women can be fighters, the idea's not unrealistic".
>>47727959
Yeah and the Trung sisters, again a few exceptions as commanders doesn't make a rule. These were not representative of the army and were not expected to fight to the same level as it.
>>47728063
>/tg/ has a dreadfully thin skin when it comes to the subject of women in history and fantasy sometimes.
probably because most people on this board either have no female friends that are into the same stuff as them or that they're just used to having the females in their lives being housewives
>>47726624
I subscribe to the notion that women shouldn't need armor.
>>47728047
>the fitness standards of the NFL and other pro leagues are similar to that of the army.
you can't be serious
>>47728103
No, I noticed.
>>47727864
>>47727973
For fucks sake just assume [reason for boob armour in the setting].
>>47728145
Yeah, they're notably higher than the army's.
>>47728117
See previous point about reliability of sources and again one woman in a grave of warriors doesn't make the rule.
>>47728039
>Why are you arguing that some super determined outlier can be a single female soldier in an entire army
Because the person said "female warriors in any setting" as being unrealistic.
It's hardly requires magic for women to be warriors, hence why it's not "unrealistic".
Also, your strawmanning wasn't what's being argued, but even so it still satisfies the criteria to say that women in an appropriate setting can be warriors without it being "unrealistic."
Sure, you might turn some heads if you're planning on playing a game set in a historical setting, but under particular circumstances it wouldn't be so bizarre to see female warriors because they are able to achieve a level of strength that makes them suitable for many potential warrior roles. With that being the major difference between men and women in this general argument, it stands that it's not "unrealistic" in a wide variety of settings,
Women do not have to rely on augmented/magical/unrealistic strength in order to be warriors, since they are able to achieve, in reality, a level of strength that satisfies and even exceeds what is necessary.
>>47727859
Men were too busy playing France France Revolution so they had to make their own fun.
>>47728039
>implying only male peasant farmers are butch
It's like you think working fields all day doesn't increase physical fitness. The stereotypical image of woman in the house while men were in the fields is a 1950's-style fallacy. EVERYONE worked the fields when they weren't busy with some other work, because people wanted to fucking eat.
Does that mean women were thrown in to combat all the time? Nah, but they were likely used for their fair share of auxiliary labor, like digging ditches and such.
>>47728047
>one upon a time you had to be in peak physical condition to be a soldier.
Another falsehood. The best example is perhaps the Armies of WW2, even the Western ones who had plenty of time to train, were made up of 'average joes'. That is they weren't the fittest or most capable, but they were still able to whip them in to shape for battle. And not just WW2, but every major war of the last century was fought largely by 'common men', not some elite army of he-men.
And thank fucking god that's true. The moment our military becomes some sort of truly elite class is the moment is stops working for the people, and the people start working for it.
>>47728168
Absolutely nothing will convince you. Alright.
>>47728063
Wut!? Seriously?
Did they blame it on SJW's forcing GW to change the lore, too? Just to be extra stupid.
> The pop-culture notion that armor fits to breasts
's mostly the Jap's doing.
>>47728127
Nobody here is talking about women making up a significant presence or majority of an army, though? They're talking about female soldiers being things that have existed, and similarly fought on the front line when they have? Of which numerous examples have been provided in thread?
Let's cut to the chase: Is there any example that would qualify for you as "sufficient evidence" that a female being a soldier is not only realistic but has happened before? The various accounts of shield maidens, both in battles won by Vikings and those wherein they were only discovered after stripping the dead of valuables? The various instances of front-line commanders in fighters in armies of antiquity / post-classical era? Various Irish / Scottish warrior-queens?
>>47728210
Is this just the admittance that you've ran out of evidence to support your preconceived bias?
I can be convinced but frankly nothing I've seen outweighs the evidence on the other side. Women hardly served in the military, if they did it was less than 1%. If a situation arose where a raid occurred and there were no fighting aged men, the inhabitants would flee. This is the realistic situation. Luckily for you, this is fantasy and you can do whatever you want. But don't complain about unrealistic armour when the whole situation of an Amazonian society, or a 50/50 gender split in a medieval setting is unrealistic to start with.
>>47728275
>Women hardly served in the military
Which isn't the same thing has "NONE EVERRRRR", you fucking faggot. Jesus Christ. It's not that fucking hard to understand, is it?
>>47728231
japs don't care. i think there's something more serious about the regular armor though, it's much more intimidating
>>47728266
Actually we were, if you look further up people were describing helms deep like situations where the army was made up of women because there were no men.
>>47728266
>Nobody here is talking about women making up a significant presence or majority of an army, though?
actually im pretty sure thats the delusion that everyone is under. no one will argue that women have never once in history fought in war. there have been female commanders, female soldiers, and even queens that have lead troops into battle. but the majority of soldiers throughout history have been men. if I were to pull a number out of my ass I would say 90% of the worlds soldiers in history have been male soldiers. and thats me being generous, its probably closer to 95%
>>47728308
Nice straw man you have there. This debate is fucking infantile and I've lost track because it's become so convoluted. What are you saying? Can you relate this back to the original point.
>>47728275
>But don't complain about unrealistic armour
This is your attempt to justify what basically amounts to a mix of misogyny alongside a general inability to comprehend that realistic and historical are not quite the same thing?
Worrying about realism in the case of armor designs for women is hardly as bizarre and insane as you are hoping to portray it as, and that diminishes your argument against the people who complain about unrealistic armor.
As someone who agrees that complaining about unrealistic armor can get rather tedious and tiresome, do us all a service and keep your backwards arguments to yourself.
>>47728103
>people in this thread forget that women have been suppressed for millenniums and haven't been seen as mens equal for most of history
Have you ever thought that women historically might have been suppressed BECAUSE men are considerably superior at enacting violence?
What's the alternative here? That women were suppressed because they wanted to be? I don't think you thought that statement through.
>>47728352
>Nice straw man you have there
What are you saying then? If that's a strawman, then it means you're agreeing with my point that women have fought in the front lines before. And if you're agreeing with that point, why do you keep on denying it? Nobody ever said that women ever made up the majority of combatants in history. Nobody sincere at least.
>>47726795
Vikings never had female warriors because women were fucking forbidden from owning wepaons and going on raids. Besides vikings usually ''fought'' unarmed people so that would still be a terrible fucking example.
>>47728384
I fucking said women made up less than 1%, so yes that means some women are you illiterate and fucking autistic? I have at no point said women were never in the military, only that it was insignificant.
>>47728103
>and haven't been seen as mens equal for most of settled history
fix'd
>>47728408
You were dismissing any evidence for the fact that women soldiers in the front lines had existed. Maybe keep it consistent next time?
rule of cool/drool
>>47728362
Please explain to me how history and realism are not the same thing? Take your post-modern bullshit out of here.
>>47726624
I subscribe to the notion I am playing fantasy games that need not be 100% realistic for me to enjoy. Furthermore unrealistic aesthetic elements can even be more enjoyable.
>>47728438
No I said 'a few women in a warrior grave and a few commanders doesn't make a rule', they were warriors but a tiny minority. I'm not going back up the post to find it, you do that you deaf lazy ugly fat motherfucking cunt.
>>47728466
Oh, you were arguing against your own strawman. Got it.
>>47728443
A scenario that did not occur historically can still be realistic.
Are you really that stupid?
>>47727382
the snipers in that game can see through walls anyway. the hair is the least of your worries.
>>47728149
Are Tau mammals?
the armour is subjective to circumstances. from a practical point of view it makes no sense for women to wear different armour than men, but for high status figures like a female commander it would make sense to wear a ceremonial armour that identifies her clearly as female.
>>47728476
So how do we build the boundaries on what is 'realistic' and what is not. We use sense such as observance, ie. past event. We can say aliens invading is unrealistic because we have no example of it happening before.
>>47728362
>Worrying about realism in the case of armor designs for women is hardly as bizarre and insane as you are hoping to portray it as, and that diminishes your argument against the people who complain about unrealistic armor.
>this
>>47728476
it can be plausible, but if it never happened I wouldn't call it realistic.
>>47728316
Helm's Deep scenarios? Not particularly often, since fortifications tended to imply an active military presence / garrison.
"Battles" wherein an "army" was predominantly made up of by women? Those have happened, sort-of, but said "battles" are typically of the nature of "Village v raiding party" or the like. Glorified cases of home defense as opposed to organized conflict between two established / rising powers. Ill-suited for argument either for or against the idea of female soldiers (since - in times of desperation - there's instances of everything from young boys to elderly women rising to the occasion to defend their hearth and kin).
>>47728340
Skim about earlier in the thread, and a few posts below yours too for that matter. While it may not be what the conversation's shifted / shifting towards now, there's still multiple users pushing the "Women? Fighting? Now that's what I call Fantasy" angle. Not being an expert on military history I have no stake or interest in participating in the "What are the historic ratios" debate, merely the "Like a woman could or has ever fought in battle" one, and unfortunately it is not as one-sided as one would hope.
>>47728473
Show me the post where I say women have never been in the army ever and then when you can't find it kill yourself.
>>47728528
See >>47727793
>Where are these examples of women on the front line?
You're making up another strawman here. Be careful about that. We were talking about women in the frontlines.
>>47728504
> We can say aliens invading is unrealistic because we have no example of it happening before.
What are you even trying to argue at this point? Yes, that is unrealistic. That's why aliens fall under science ficition, under the collective umbrella of speculative fiction that fantasy also falls.
Really though, we have historical examples of women warriors. If that's not enough to vouch for them to be "realistic", then what will satisfy you?
Do you need to be beaten up by a woman?
>>47728555
How is that saying they never existed. Asking for evidence apparently constitutes a straw man. Also bonus points for taking the quote out of context I said 'unspecific claims or a few burial sites'
> A FEW BURIAL SITES
> A FEW
> ie. a small BUT quantifiable number
>>47728579
I'm saying our understanding of realism is based on historical understanding. Women warriors were a rarity. Why are you all assuming I'm saying women warriors never existed?
>>47728275
This post outlines the basic argument.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khutulun
>Khutulun was born about 1260.[3] By 1280, her father Kaidu became the most powerful ruler of Central Asia, reigning in the realms from western Mongolia to Oxus, and from the Central Siberian Plateau to India.
>Marco Polo described Khutulun as a superb warrior, one who could ride into enemy ranks and snatch a captive as easily as a hawk snatches a chicken. She assisted her father in many battles, particularly against the Yuan Dynasty of her cousin the Great Khan - Kublai (r. 1260-94).
>Khutulun insisted that any man who wished to marry her must defeat her in wrestling and forfeit horses to her if they lost. She gained 10,000 horses defeating prospective suitors.[3]
>Khutulun's enemies alleged that she and her father had an incestuous relationship and that this explained her resolve not to marry. In order to protect him from these rumors, Khutulun decided to marry one of her father’s followers, without wrestling him. Sources vary about her husband's identity. Some chronicles say her husband was a handsome man who failed to assassinate her father and was taken prisoner; others refer to him as Kaidu's companion from the Choros clan. Rashid al-Din wrote that Khutulun fell in love with Ghazan, Mongol ruler in Persia.
>Of all Kaidu's children, Khutulun was the favorite, and the one from whom he most sought advice and political support. According to some accounts, he tried to name her as his successor to the khanate before he died in 1301. However, his choice was declined due to her male relatives. When Kaidu died, Khutulun guarded his tomb with the assistance of her brother Orus. She was challenged by her other brothers including Chapar and relative Duwa because she resisted their succession. She died in 1306.
>>47728555
To be fair to >>47728603 , they may have interpreted my post as saying men and women fought on front lines together in comparable numbers (and thus, by extension, make their request of evidence be aimed towards that instead of the idea of women fighting as frontline soldiers whatsoever).
>>47728352
>This debate is fucking infantile
That certainly is true, you just don't get that both sides of it are the problem.
Some of us are getting sick of people shitting up 4chan with this retarded war against/in favor of SJW's.
>>47728482
mammals have hooves
>>47728663
Cool Marco Polo seems to not be exaggerating at all here. Basically what are you trying to prove, I've already said women warriors existed, usually in this instance as a commander.
See previous post. >>47728275
>>47726624
Don't care either way.
Now think up a new troll thread please.
>>47728667
I know, I apologise for crashing the thread. I agree with you there, both sides are cancerous and I'm not on either side but you must admit they are wrong and have a debating manner which pushes one to insanity.
>>47728036
I'm not failing to realize anything. Professional volunteer soldiers are taken from the right hand side of the bell curve. It's intellectually dishonest to pretend that we are talking about the same populations as the populations in general, and even as far as that goes, far, far more men are able to meet standards than women from a purely physical standpoint.
>>47728667
This is hardly about SJWs.
I hate SJWs, but that doesn't stop me from recognizing casual misogyny and calling people out on it. This is less about feminism and fighting the patriarchy, and more about just not sustaining this strange idea that women could never be warriors under any circumstance.
Considerably less likely to be them? Certainly, but if someone comes up with an alternate history with some troop of female warriors, I'm not going to scream "HOW UNREALISTIC" if they've provided some interesting rationale behind it.
Shortbow-equipped horseback archers from a low-population desert nomad tribe where every body counts? Could work.
Honestly at this point the subversion of the idea of "boobplate" is probably more ingrained into popular culture than its older inspiration.
But any argument about realism or practicality is inherently flawed because 1. male armor was ornamental to the same degree and 2. females in a regular army wearing plate armor and actually engaging in combat is far more improbable.
Ultimately what it really comes down to is aesthetic preferences. Personally, I'm not a huge fan of cheesy hyper sexualized designs. Luckily there is more than one artist in the world, so people with different tastes can have their desires fulfilled.
>>47726624
Know what I love the most about boobplate?
It entirely ignores that people, especially women, have a propensity for choosing less effective clothing/equipment in order to appeal to aesthetics.
Pic very related.
>inb4 patriarchy
Women have almost always ruled fashion in the western world.
>>47729013
>Women have almost always ruled fashion in the western world.
not true at all, men have ruled fashion for most of western culture and arguably still do
>>47728896
>It's intellectually dishonest
What's intellectually dishonest is to argue women realistically can't be warriors when there's really no hard limits stopping them, there's historical examples of women warriors, and there's really nothing grossly illogical about the concept.
If you don't like the idea, that's fine for your personal setting, but you can hardly consider the idea "unrealistic."
>>47726624
in a fantasy game, who fucking cares. wear what you like. Personally I'd lean towards having gruff, practically minded or poorer women wear normal style, and people with cash to blow on more customized stuff who want to look pretty going for the outfit that contours to them.
In the same way I could picture a rich beta noble buying himself armor like the Batman & Robin Batsuit complete with armor abs.
In terms of overall practical application in a gender integrated military, having one uniform design that fits a broader amount of body types is the utilitarian solution.
Don't know what everyone in this thread is going on about. History is history isn't games. In games, muscle chicks are abound and welcome. I thought /tg/ loved muscle chicks?
>>47728667
I'll also apologise for any personal insults used. I think we'll have to agree to disagree and a few minutes on /tg/ aren't going to change opinions.
I'm going out for some drinks here's a warrior.
>>47729031
HAHHAHAHAA
>>47729072
It's also intellectually dishonest to pretend that someone said something that is patently different from what they said.
This whole conversation is stupid.
Historically did women serve in the military?
Occasionally. It didn't seem to make that much of difference.
Do women serve in modern day armies?
Yes, rather frequently. It doesn't make much of a difference.
>>47729031
>arguably still do
Not at all. The Fashion industry is very heavily female-dominated.
It is true though that throughout history women have stolen Men's fashion and made it their own. See: Pants, skirts, high heels, underclothes padding, make-up, etc. etc.
>>47729097
>Yes, rather frequently.
Nope. The only places that's true are those with mandatory service requirements, and those are in a minority.
>>47729088
Let's stop, because I think there's some backpedaling being done, or otherwise you are just arguing against no one.
Do you, or do you not, agree with this statement?
"Female warriors in any setting are unrealistic."
>>47729114
>Not at all. The Fashion industry is very heavily female-dominated.
If you look at the top of the top designers, they're mostly males.
>>47729146
Those "top designers" aren't the goddamn dictators of fashion. It's a wide industry. And by "top" I assume you mean "Most financially successful", which would fall under everyday fashion, as opposed to high fashion.
>>47729131
Name a Western military with no women in it.
Regardless of your feelings on women, they can fire a rifle, shoot a missile, fly a plane, or drive a tank ALMOST (if not as good) as a man.
So we use them.
>>47729097
Modern anti-radfem cultists need to constantly push this mantra of hatred against all women. Since RPGs encompass vague anthropological tropes, the cultists have free reign to crossboard shitpost as much as they please.
They think if they shitpost enough, they will go to Goodboy Point Heaven with plenty of tendies and Unlimited Breadsticks.
>>47729131
Well that's only because women don't want to.
But really, who can blame them for taking advantage of being handed the easy life?
>>47729072
A highly trained and tall woman is on par with an untrained average man. The difference between men and woman is so vast that it's basically pointless to try to utilize women on the battlefield in all but the most desperate of situations, which is why they never were. Even putting aside the differences in strength and endurance, their bones are more brittle, their joints are more susceptible to degeneration, and they have less blood
The amazons never existed, joan of arc was a cheerleader, and the one time the onna-bugeisha were used in a real battle they were slaughtered.
Fuck you.
>>47729202
I honestly can't tell who you're trying to troll, all I can tell is that you're trying to troll somebody.
>>47728466
>>47728408
at this point it doesnt really matter who of you is right or wrong, but youre definitely undermining everything you say
by dropping meme - insults left and right.
>>47729188
i would say "top" as critically acclaimed, like book authors and stuff like that
>>47726624
>225 replies and 22 images omitted.
>>47728311
I'm not saying it's the Jap's fault, but more they're the biggest perpetrators these days
>>47729224
>A highly trained and tall woman is on par with an untrained average man.
Modern warfare kinda fucked with that, didn't it?
It's like the saying goes, "God created men, Sam Colt made them Equal".
>>47729281
yeah but it's also selling, i think that's why the japs are doing it the most
>>47729202
>>47726624
By the time you get to hardened plate you can basically make it whatever shape you want because penetration is so rare, people who die in plate get thrown to the ground and have their helmets ripped off. That is how they die >90% of the time.
>>47729224
>untrained average man
That's the part where you are wrong. The strongest women are stronger than a fair share of male athletes, and meet any and all requirements for warfare.
Given the choice to put money down on the strongest woman and the weakest male soldier under the question of who would win in a fight, it's not really a question as to who you would bet on. In less hyperbolic circumstances the distinction might not be so evident, but if all you're trying to argue is that woman can't be soldiers on account of their physical attributes, than the hyperbole satisfies.
>>47729283
>Modern warfare kinda fucked with that, didn't it?
No. The modern soldier carries a heavier load than a 15th century knight with full plate and a polearm. It's also being carried almost entirely on the shoulders rather than being to some degree holding itself up. Now, in terms of immediate, anaerobic strength, modern infantry don't need quite as much, because smacking someone with something doesn't happen all that often. But endurance and conditioning? Far more.
>It's like the saying goes, "God created men, Sam Colt made them Equal".
That statement is in regards to using handguns for personal defense in a civilian setting. In which it is mostly true.
>>47726692
Real life is not realistic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_post-classical_warfare http://www.lothene.org/others/women.html
>>47727029
These retards whining about female soldiers are even being wrong about historical realism too, women did see battles now and then rare yes but it did happen.
>>47727143
How does it feel being this wrong?
>>47727694
>Says go read some history books when he never read any history books.
>>47728168
So you not even going to look at sources given?
>>47728184
>France France Revolution
LOL.
>>47728275
No, it is clear to him that you will not read anything does not stupid bias. And where is the proof to back up what you are saying?
>>47728391
Proof?
>>47729097
>Historically did women serve in the military?
Yes, rarely but it did happen.
>>47729232
>>47729320
Before saying that he is trying to troll reread this thread.
>I can't stop to read the bait
>Help
Small boobplate is alright as in it's useless but not hurting.
A large bosom however makes it impossible to point your arms forwards (on flesh boobs, they squish, on metal boobs your arms are stuck).
so anything more than about a B cup is strictly for show.
>>47726624
This meme again.
ITT: we continue to beat a dead horse.
>>47729197
>implying that women existing in service="frequently"
They can't carry wounded, extract wounded from a tank, load 120mm shells, handle anything dealing with artillery as well with the exception of fire control, and the like.
>>47726624
The type of breastplate in this pic is the sensible, "realistic" option. "Boobplate" or those bloody silly chainmail lingerie items exist solely to entice weebs, hormone-crazed teenagers and other stripes of magical realm dwelling reprobates.
>>47729331
>Given the choice to put money down on the strongest woman and the weakest male soldier under the question of who would win in a fight, it's not really a question as to who you would bet on. In less hyperbolic circumstances the distinction might not be so evident, but if all you're trying to argue is that woman can't be soldiers on account of their physical attributes, than the hyperbole satisfies.
You'd bet on the soldier because fucking strength isn't everything in a fight. Fuck you have no clue what you're talking about. There's a reason MMA fighters don't look like professional body builders and this is true of either sex.
>>47726839
No because women are weaker, you see
>>47729434
You dumb moron WE'RE AUTOMATED NOW. All heavy lifting done via automation
>Extracting wounded in any fashion
We're Drone striking, shelling over the curvature of the earth, and firing missiles from warships why the fuck are we getting wounded we care about?
Frankly being the average male is a determent due to the increased average weight of personal in vehicles and food ration increases.
>>47729331
Protip: olympic lifting is as much about technique as strength. Using that as a metric is flawed.
>>47726913
Someone has never swung an object irl
>>47729478
Stop. Seriously, just stop. We're not "AUTOMATED NOW".
>>47729471
>You'd bet on the soldier because fucking strength isn't everything in a fight
Oh, for fuck's sake, you idiot. I was hoping you were at the level where I wouldn't have to say
>with all other facets equal
because you should understand that in the context of this argument the only issue being discussed is physical ability.
A robot with its parameters set at the physical levels of the most athletic woman vs. a robot with its parameters set at the physical levels of the weakest male soldier.
Happy? Where's your money going?
>>47727012
Because it guided shashes away. Boobplate does the opposite and looks plain silly.
>>47727026
No, you're just stupid.
>>47729224
Again, no: The example that sparked this debate was a (highly trained and tall) woman doing a 161kg Clean and Jerk, which is in itself ~200lbs over what the average untrained male can deadlift and noticeably above even a fair deal of special forces' deadlift requirements.
Most physical training tables broken down by "Beginner / Untrained, Novice, Intermediate, Advanced, Exceptional / Elite" tend to peg women (of comparable size) only 1-2 categories off from men, one on the lower end (140lbs or less) and two beyond. The only three-tier, "Advanced of one sex = Novice of other" examples occur after the 250lb point, and at that point you're noticeably passing the recommended weight requirements for military service.
There's definitely a strength gap (upper and lower body), but it's not as severe as you're making it out to be.
>>47727068
Misogyny IS casual.
