Alright /tg/, I decree two challenges
The First! Post lady-knights, we ALL need more lady-knights. Don't like the second challenge? Who cares, post lady-knights
The Second! Justify combat heels in a world that doesn't have horses. I'm thinking something along the lines of imitating digitigrade lizard demons to look scarier?
>>46030092
Ladyknights just so happen to be my fetish.
>Justify combat heels in a world that doesn't have horses
Plateau-like heels can make you look taller. Stilleto heels that are basically the modern equivalent of high heels serve little purpose on the battlefield. In business it can still help you look taller and more intimidating, but board meetings aren't decided by who is the last (wo)man standing.
>>46030288
The problem is more "why would heels have developed" since they first appeared for stirups as I understand
>>46030531
Western heels developed for stirrups, but further east the excuse was "The hems of my fashionably oversized robes keep picking up dirt and mud, and I'm sure as hell not wearing shorter robes."
>>46030531
>The problem is more "why would heels have developed"
I guess they could theoretically develop if the female warrior-nobility starts getting really insecure about being shorter than their male counterparts.
>>46030760
I wouldnt call those heels per se though
>>46030834
I mean it's got a taller heel than forefoot so I really don't follow you there bruh.
Now this on the other hand, this serves the same purpose but is decidedly not heels.
>>46030092
>Justify combat heels in a world that doesn't have horses.
First thing that comes to mind: some form of martial art whose practitioners walk on their toes and attack using heel spikes. Perhaps developed to fight some sort of enemy or creature that can be walked upon. Really doubt it would actually be practical, but maybe it's a start.
>>46030805
PLATE ARMOR DOESN'T WORK IF THERE IS OBVIOUS "STAB ME HERE FOR ARTERY WOUND" SPOTS
>>46030896
Oh, that reminds me— these precarious tengu stilt-sandals actually filled a need for gaining precise footholds on rocky mountain paths and later martial arts nerds liked to use wear them to train their balance
>>46030938
Sure it does.
>>46030092
Extra weapons. A good kick with a solid steel stiletto can puncture a lung with ease.
>>46030992
This.
Sexy dominatrix-esque assassins or dark knightresses who can use their sharpened heals as a Misericorde to finish off wounded fighters. Literal stiletto heels.
>post lady knights
Yall niggas ignoring half the OP
Let's see, I think I should have a few lady knights in my folders
>>46030760
Those were in the west too. They were called pattens.
>>46031067
And to add, it's not just about getting robes dirty, medieval turnshoes weren't as tough or waterproof as modern shoes so you'd want to not get them wet if possible.
>>46030938
It's "Plate" armor dingus. Of course it works. Now elven bikini armor...I'll agree with you.
>>46030981
>>46031093
if your inner thigh is exposed, any stray spear or sword severs your femoral artery and you bleed out in a few minutes. so yeah, the individual plates are still plates, but no, the harness as a whole doesn't work.
>>46031085
Some of those were also to protect the hilarious and delicate pointy ends of poulaines, which in turn were imitations of fashionably oversized sabatons (which became point to guide them into stirrups but got well out of hand).
I seem to recall some examples were so long they had to be supported by string tied to the leg.
The lesson here is you can justify damned near anything with "fashion lol"
>>46031145
~Realism~
>Guaranteed replies
>>46030092
>>46030531
>Justify combat heels in a world that doesn't have horses
Now this is problematic because without horses/ponies (or equivalent replacement) the methods in which war is conducted is drastically different. So you'd have no chariots (or else, donkey-cart chariots, which is a sad affair indeed) at the tail end of bronze age civilizations, no nomadic hordes (and, in reaction, possibly no Xiongnu -> mongolian peoples -> Huns/Avars/Goths Migration period shenanigans), and so on. Camel armies would be quite scary.
So the setting would probably be much more akin to pre-16th century Americas, with or without potatoes, depending on your background, of course.
That being said, never discount the fact that fashionability can certainly trump practical effectiveness, even if we were to ignore things like pattens. I mean, if Caesar was accurate (and he may not have been), people wore woad (or at least some tatooed glaze of some sort) into battle and possibly, maybe, ran into battle naked. At least often enough that we still remember it (or at least tell stories about it) two thousand years later.
The idea of practicality seems to have sat backseat to a man's dingly bits flopping around on a battlefield. As it should.
>>46031154
hey, i'm not the original guy complaining. i don't personally care at all, and i totally dig cheesecake. but if you're saying 'actually it does work', then you're wrong.
>>46031189
Fair.
>>46031145
Assuming you're talking about realism, won't literally every other soldier on the field have the same problem? Any exposed area not covered in GLORIOUS STEEL is then open and the rest of your armor is worthless?
I don't think I need to remind you that MOST fighting people weren't wearing full plate, and those that did were riding horses and fighting on the outskirts of battle because they're well-off and there's a shitload of fodder in between you and the enemy.
>>46031189
Except you know, people went into battle all the time with less armor than plate armor for a variety of reasons such as "I'm too poor for properly fitted plate armor since I'm not the .01%"
>>46031157
Why would someone break the formation, before geting spear thrust under her breasts
>>46031189
It WORKS, it just doesn't work AS GOOD. You could make the "ease of movement" argument but even though that still makes a hole in your armor, the rest of the armor still functions.
>>46031189
>>46031145
Of course, you can always get around that idea by suggesting that a *lack* of thigh armor, particularly as a separate piece, (as opposed to being covered by a byrnie or hauberk) is far more historically consistent for the vast majority of Migration-Period-to-Late-Middle-Ages armored soldiers than covering it ever was.
I think it's important to keep in mind that the majority of armor that survived to the modern age was either a) primarily decorative and/or b) used by nobility who could afford more complete sets than those poor foot sloggers with a padded jack. A lot of armor (most likely the vast majority) was either melted down or reused in some capacity if not saved.
Visby, in 1361, is particularly telling. For whatever reason (probably decomposition in the hot weather following the battle), a ton of soldiers were buried in a mass grave without having their armor removed. And a lot of the plate is, comparatively, of really crappy quality. There's no intricately linked sabatons, just a slab of iron riveted to a heel piece.
>>46031250
I'd thrust my spear between her breasts, if you know what I mean.
>>46031230
ok, there's a few issues with your argument.
1. the inner thigh is not any other area. areas with heavy arteries like the armpit, neck, and inner thigh are more vulnerable to cuts and flesh wounds as a good cut can cause you to be bleed out in minutes. i just read an anecdote of a guy losing consciousness in about a minute after getting stabbed in the armpit in a home invasion.
2. the reason most people didn't use full plate harness is because they couldn't afford it, not because it was useless. if you had the option to arm up every part of your body where it wouldn't severely affect your mobility or vision, you would do that. most people also had some form of armor, like a gambeson or mail.
3. you're assuming that cavalry and knights only fought on the outskirts of battle, which is wrong. there are an abundance of instances where cavalry were first in, and where armoured knights fought in the vanguard. that's how the bulk of french nobility were killed at agincourt (along with other reasons, mainly bad leadership, but they still charged first and many died on the frontline). it didn't always happen, but the armoured cavalry charge was a potent weapon, it would be silly to not use it where it's most effective, which is breaking infantry formations.
4. the purpose of armor is to increase survivability. any exposed area decreases your survivability. the most useful element of a full harness is not that it makes you impervious to direct blows, but it eliminates having to worry about the stray blows and 'shrapnel' of battle (sharp objects in your environment moving around quickly). combat is extremely chaotic. when you armor your entire body but leave one vulnerable spot not even covered by a gambeson or the bottom of a haubek, you are severely reducing your survivability - any stray blow that hits there has the chance to kill you or incapacitate you. not to mention the cuisses in that pic seem designed to deflect blows trait into the exposed area.
>>46031447
>worrying about inner thigh while riding a horse
really nigger
>>46031291
>particularly as a separate piece, (as opposed to being covered by a byrnie or hauberk)
consider that having your inner thighs covered by a mail skirt or bottom of a hauberk is extremely good and sufficient armor and not at all the same as having it exposed.
>far more historically consistent for the vast majority of Migration-Period-to-Late-Middle-Ages armored soldiers than covering it ever was
also consider that throughout all those eras, it was not just common but standard to carry a shield which would cover most of your body, including the inner thighs. in the late medieval era, to use agincourt as an example again, most armoured men-at-arms on foot went without a shield. that makes it more important to cover exposed areas.
>majority of armor that survived to the modern age was either a) primarily decorative
really don''t understand what you mean by this. most armor in history was functional, not decorative. that's why it existed. the squamata in your pic being an obvious exception.
>used by nobility who could afford more complete sets than those poor foot sloggers with a padded jack
that doesn't mean most foot sloggers went into battle naked. most went into battle as covered as possible, just usually with cheaper exceptions to plate armor, like padded/quilted cloth, hide, boiled leather, splint armor, coats of plate, whatever.
>Visby, in 1361
i appreciate the patronizing tone, but yeah, i'm aware of visby. i don't know how much evidence there is regarding leg armor, all i know is the commonly photographed examples of the mail coifs, gauntlets, and coats of plate. if you know about whether they had exposed thighs or not, i'd be interested to know.
>>46031485
that's fair. i suppose the question is about fighting on foot. on a horse it wouldn't really that much.
>>46031447
>if you had the option to arm up every part of your body where it wouldn't severely affect your mobility or vision, you would do that
Apparently not. Mobility (and relatedly, endurance) is much more important than armor. No need to wear armor if you're not hit. Most soldiers of the time period didn't go into battle with thigh protection. Furthermore, even those that could afford to often didn't (see, famously, landsknechts). That's why you have 3/4 plate and the like.
>gambeson or mail
As far as we know, a Gambeson did not, generally, close about the inner thighs. Most mail was in byrnie form, and most hauberk have an exposed slit down the middle below the waist to improve mobility.
>>46031607
> inner thighs covered by a mail skirt
See above. and Pic related. Most hauberk do not cover the inner thighs.
>shield
Shields certainly offered protection, but it should be noted that late-medieval plate-armored soldiers very often did not go about wearing shields, regardless of whether or not they're armored below the waist.
>that's why it existed.
Sure, but most armor that survives to this day was not designed to be primarily functional and cover much more area than would the average plated soldier wear.
>most went into battle as covered as possible
And in the vast majority of cases, this was, at best, just clothing. Perhaps a padded jack, helm and buckler, but usually not more.
Pic related: Thighs are exposed during movement. No, there would not have been additional leg armor.
>>46031607
Also the point of the squamata was to show that it only extends to just below the waist. A soldier may or may not have worn greaves (probably not), but certainly the upper legs and thighs would not have been armored.
>>46030092
Assuminf super human capabilities (which isn't that unreasonable for lots of settings) the heels could be used in some sort of ridiculous-but-cool martial art.
They could also serve the more mundane real life purpose of making women taller except the intended effect is now to be more intimidating, rather than just feeling more confident.
I can't really think of anything else except magical mobility boosters that happen to look like heels and that feels silly.
>>46030092
The God of War thinks women look prettier in high heels.
>>46031755
>Apparently not. Mobility (and relatedly, endurance)
endurance is certainly a concern, and being on horseback mitigates that, but then why did retainers and well off men-at-arms typically armor up? why did even the lowliest soldiers wear a gambeson that covered their thighs? you are strawmanning my argument, which is about having vulnerable parts of your body exposed, not covered by a cheaper or lighter form of armor. that's a different thing entirely.
>Most soldiers of the time period didn't go into battle with thigh protection
this is just absolutely false. most soldiers went into battle with a gambeson, aketon, hauberk, whatever. at the very lest, these would cover the top of the thighs, the area that's the topic of this discussion.
>see, famously, landsknechts
cloth armor is armor. having thick cloth covering your body is a lot difference than being exposed. this is exactly my point.
>3/4 plate and the like.
we're getting out of the medieval era at this point, but again, 3/4 was typically used by cuirassiers, other kinds of cavalry, and pikeman and other line soldiers who couldn't necessarily afford heavier harnesses. the cavalry point is moot.
>have an exposed slit down the middle below the waist to improve mobility
let's be clear here. the pic in question has 0 armor from mid-thigh to hip. if you are saying that is equivalent protection to a byrnie, i'm not sure what to tell you.
>but it should be noted that late-medieval plate-armored soldiers very often did not go about wearing shields
this is literally what i said. the era of plate made shields redundant. but in order for armor to actually increase your survivability, it had to be on the vulnerable part of your body. the era where shields were dropped was the era where armor was its heaviest and thickest.
>Sure, but most armor that survives to this day was not designed to be ...
you mean, most extant pieces of armor, like greenwich workshop pieces etc., were embellished or decorative?
>>46031607
I'm afraid I was not clear about Visby. The reason I brought it up was to connect to the previous point about the 'functionality' of surviving armors. At Visby there was no scavanging of the armor of the fallen soldiers before they were interned into a mass grave. Since most armor was reforged (and thus lost) this means the mass graves are quite a historical boon for us in that we can see what contemporary armor was really like, rather than just royal parade pieces that are brought out for maybe a tourney before being put away.
And what it shows us is that armor worn by both the peasant levy as well as most men-at-arms were not intricately crafted full-plate as seen in museums or in RPGs. Mail is mail, but the plate is something else. It was mostly haphazardly, ill-fitting, put together pieces that covered only the barest essentials (read: chest, head).
In other words, exposing skin while in armor may be silly cheesecake, but it doesn't automatically make it non-historical either. It really depends.
>>46031804
i'm not sure how many times you want me to tell you this, but roman soldiers had big ass shields. shields covered your thighs, whether you were wearing squamata, hamata, segementata, or were naked.
if the girl in the pic in question goes into battle with a pavise, this is a moot point.
the other issue, to get back to my original point, is that a plate harness with massive exposed areas doesn't work as a functional plate harness. if a poor footsoldier goes into battle with no armor, that footslogger's lack of armor also doesn't work as a plate harness. if he gets hit, he'll probably be wounded. but even a padded jack is vastly better than nothing at all. so the 'lack of or cheap armor argument' is not really addressing the question of how effective a particular harness is.
>>46031157
>>46032063
Please don't post recreations. That armor is all sorts of wrong. The studding is improper (it's clearly machined and should be internal) and the legs are anachronistic (the flax linen is machined). Shoes are good though.
>cover the top of the thighs
They do not cover the femoral artery. Your picture does not have armor in the inner thigh.
>cloth armor is armor
No, there is a difference between what a Landsknecht wore and what padded jacks refer to; Heggstad's translations refer to padding being filled with wool or horse hair. It's not just clothing.
>3/4 was typically used by cuirassiers
Incorrect. 15th and 16th century pike formations that used plate to some extent (Novara, Mariganano) wore plate that did not cover their lower halves.
>if you are saying that is equivalent protection to a byrnie
I'm saying a byrnie doesn't cover there at all.
>>46032159
>functional plate harness
And I'm saying it doesn't matter. Almost all extant, surviving examples of armor was never used in serious battle for much time at all, so our peception of armor is skewed. Most actual field plate didn't cover nearly as much as tournament armor, and certainly didn't cover as much as whatever poor man-at-arm went into battle with.
>>46032210
>>46032210
Why would she need armor and a shield while using a meat tenderizer?
>>46032411
>>46032424
>>46032063
So here's a picture that's a bit late in the period, but serves fine. It's munition armor, so is a bit closer to what you'd normally find on a man-at-arms than even half-plate (or, perhaps more correctly, demi-lancer armor).
This would be purchased for soldiers that A) did not carry shields, and B) were infantry like 16th century Swiss Guard. Note that the inner thighs are completely exposed, as was the case with 14th and 15th century Hauberks (I also did not make it clear, but earlier Byrnies, of which are the majority, only go down to the waist).
Now, these soldiers wore padding underneath (as well as an aketon), but this padding is not the same as a Gambeson, in the same way that mail worn under plate is lighter and much more fine than mail as the primary armor.
>>46032445
>>46032467
Fuck me in the ass, here's the picture.
One day i'm gonna play a female paladin or full-plate fighter that uses armor with huge tits.She's flat as a board underneath and stuffs the titplate full of wadding to soften bodyblows from maces and the like
>>46032468
>>46032546
>>46032489
See here, from Burgkmair, through Grimes. Infantry, in partial plate armor, wearing a plate cuirass but only cloth leggings, in a time period that witnessed the greatest extent of plate armor. In fact they're not even armored under the arms either.
>>46030938
no one cares about your autism, faggot
>>46032525
Super boring. She should have a flat breastplate that she never takes off because she's secretly concealing giant breasts under it.
>>46032560
>>46032322
>They do not cover the femoral artery. Your picture does not have armor in the inner thigh.
now you're being a pedant. having a skirt is covering the thighs. any stray blow coming from a person will have to go through that skirt to hit the thigh.
>The studding is improper... (the flax linen is machined)
both irrelevant to the proportions.
>Incorrect. 15th and 16th century pike formations that used plate to some extent
that's literally what i said:
>and pikeman and other line soldiers who couldn't necessarily afford heavier harnesses.
>Heggstad's translations refer to padding being filled with wool or horse hair. It's not just clothing.
you're trying to present a dichotomy where if you don't have a piece of metal over something, it's exposed. this isn't true, so please stop doing it. having clothing over something is different than having it exposed. try running a knife across your bare skin, then try doing it over a sweater. clothed skin is not exposed, which is my point.
>I'm saying a byrnie doesn't cover there at all.
you're pretending that people were naked under a byrnie, which is false. you wouldn't wear mail over bear skin, ever. you would wear it over a padded garment or at the least, a tunic, which is protection. and many gambesons are in fact closed at the front.
>and certainly didn't cover as much as whatever poor man-at-arm went into battle with.
you're presenting two strawmen:
1. the fact that most people had bad armor means they also had armor that wouldn't function as well as plate harness, which is what i'm saying.
2. you're pretending that i'm saying bad/cheap armor is equivalent to being exposed. even the average footmen would be fully clothed. being clothed is different than being exposed, which is what the question here is.
and complain about recreations all you want, this is what a group of people who spent a lot of time researching the period came to the conclusion that it would look like. i don't see any exposed thighs.
>>46032580
This is one of my favorite things.
>>46032609
>>46032642
>We claim this Thread in the name of the Emperor.
>PURGE THE HERETIC.gif
>>46032610
>go through that skirt to hit the thigh.
To hit the femoral artery, the blow would have to come from an angle that thrusts into the inner thigh (perhaps from below or from the front, but not from the side). In that situation, hauberk has no armor.
> it's exposed
No, I'm saying that your suggestion that a Landsknecht was wearing "armoring" in the form of padding below the waist is ridiculous. It's not padded armor, it's cloth. That's a different argument to the difference between an exposed thigh and covering it with cloth.
>had armor that wouldn't function as well as plate harness
I'm saying that the armor they had wouldn't function as well as what you're describing and thus your standard of plate isn't historical at all, since surviving armors cover way more of the body than the vast majority of historical armors.
>being clothed is different than being exposed
Look at this picture. What armor is he wearing?
He probably/maybe has a skull cap under his hat. He's got a breast-plate of some kind. He's got crotch armor. And that's it. There's no mail under the puffy arms and legs, and he's certainly just wearing stockings below the knee. THAT is still plate armor. Partial, to be sure, but it's plate armor used in an actual battle.
>>46030092
Females in armor, especially sexy armor is one of my favorite things.
Justifying combat heels in a world without horses isn't too hard. Heels make you taller, being taller is almost always considered a good thing (in terms of image not necessarily actually fighting prowess). As to why people actually use heels in combat I would chalk it up to fashion/tradition/culture. As long as you don't have non-heeled people in combat the relative disadvantage applies to both sides so there wouldn't necessarily be an impetus to throw away the heels for combat purposes.
>>46032610
>researching the period came to the conclusion that it would look like
"...16th century a typical pikeman would have worn at minimum no armour at all and at maximum a munitions half Harnisch (harness).
...A better off pikeman might have a breastplate with crossed straps in the back"
- Schöbel, Fine Arms and Armor, Treasures in the Dresden Collection, 1975
It should be noted that the Harnisch covers the shoulders and that's about it.
>>46032778
>In that situation, hauberk has no armor.
if you consider this >>46032322 pic to be an equivalent protection on the thighs as this >>46030805 then i'm not really interesting in continuing this discussion.
you are still pretending that people were completely naked under the hauberk and never wore gambesons armor doublets or padded leggings. - you are also pretending that in the era were hauberks were never long enough to cover the thigh.
despite having a split in the middle, mail behaves like cloth in the sense that it bends and drapes, and covers more of your thighs than the pic does. even having a splite byrnie is better protection could bend and drape over the thigh. having a hauberk increases your survivability more than having nothing does. see pic - the way it drapes over the thigh despite being split. it just isn't equivalent to wearing nothing, so stop saying it is.
and the reason most hauberks were split was to facilitate horse-riding, and like i said above, the cavalry issue is a moot point.
>I'm saying that the armor they had wouldn't function as well as what you're describing and thus your standard of plate isn't historical at all, since surviving armors cover way more of the body than the vast majority of historical armors.
you're still doing this strawman? my point isn't, about, whether, full, plate, harness, was, historically, common, or, uncommon, it's, about, whether, a, plate, harness, achieves, its, intended, purpose, if it, doesn't, cover, the, vulnerable, parts, of your, body.
>That's a different argument to the difference between an exposed thigh and covering it with cloth
no, that's literally the argument we're having. as far as i understand, you are saying what a landsknecht wears is equivalent to >>46030805, and i'm saying it isn't. having thick, draping, folded cloth does more to protect you from stray cuts than being naked does.
>>46032897
>researching the period came to the conclusion that it would look like
it's a reenactment of the battle of visby. why are you referencing descriptions of 16th c. pikeman?
>Look at this picture. What armor is he wearing?
he is wearing a very thick garment of folded and twisted cloth over his arms and upper legs, which is more protectful than being naked. not sure if you understand, but wearing a thick cloth garment is not the same as having exposed skin.
if the girl original pic were wearing what that landsknecht was wearing, we wouldn't be having this discussion. if you are trying to say a landskecht outfit is equivalent to having naked thighs, again, i don't know what to say.
again - to get back to my actual point, which is about survivability:
>Maximilian I exempted them from the prevalent sumptuary laws as an acknowledgement of their "...short and brutish" lives.[9]
landsknecht kit is not designed for survivability. therefore, it also does not work as a full plate harness.
>muh parade armour
Can we stop this myth? Highly decorated armour like this was fully intended to be worn in live combat. Its just meant to show everyone how rich you are while you do it.
>>46031157
OP was asking for knights, that's clearly a legionnaire.
>>46031145
>Lady Knights
>Heel and Boob Plate
>Not designed to encourage your spear towards their inner thighs
I don't think you understand what this thread is about...
>>46033139
>You are still pretending that people were completely naked under the hauberk and never wore gambesons armor doublets or padded leggings
Please note that it had already been mentioned that armor worn as the primary armor is very much different to armor worn underneath other armor. For instance, a 1100s full, thigh-length mail haubergon (as described by Elliot-Wright) weighed close to 50 pounds. However, according to Breidling, an aketon of a somewhat later period would weigh as little 6 pounds.
>whether plate achieves its intended purpose
This is a very mistaken train of thought. Certainly, if more body armor is better, why do people not don a solid block of iron around themselves. Clearly, it's because combustion engines and the tank was not yet invented. Likewise, simply because someone is not fully covered in plate does not mean they're functionally less proficient in the purpose of the armor. The armor doesn't just protect. It protects AND provides the means to engage the opponent, which, often, entails less armor. Otherwise they'd just put up a giant slab of steel and run away.
>>46033264
>why are you referencing
Because renactors consistently wear more armor than their real-world counterparts.
>very thick garment of folded
As far as contemporary descriptions entail, that is not "thick' garment at all. It's poofy puffed-and-slashed clothing that was the fashion at the time. They're wearing stockings, not clothing.
>it also does not work as a full plate harness
Holy fuck, get out of here. If that's your line of reasoning then any armor other than a full suit is not full plate either, and thus your comparison to armors less covering than such is absolutely irrelevant.
>>46033373
well, kinda, but not really, at least not the english ones.
a lot of those extant super-embellished full suits came about in the elizabethan era, and were made to impress and catch the attention of the queen (and the court in general). most were made at the greenwich workshop (like this one from 1586), which was right by the palace. they could be worn in battle, but they weren't made with that as the primary intent. by the time a lot of them were being made plate was starting to phase out on the battlefield.
as for german and french ones, i'm not quite as sure, i'd have to look into it further.
>>46030092
>no horses
they ride something else.
>>46032181
>natural weapons
oh god I just noticed them she's a goddamn harpy innit she
>>46033504
This goes all the way back to the early Middle Ages though, look at the heavily decorated swords or helmets used by rich Viking era leaders.
Those were intended for combat too, the idea that something being highly decorated means its purely ceremonial is very misleading.
>>46033616
You think people clipped their toenails in ancient roman times? Not everyone was a senator and had a fuckload of slaves to take care of everything.
>>46033483
>50 pounds. However, according to Breidling, an aketon of a somewhat later period would weigh as little 6 pounds.
cloth doesn't weigh as much as metal? really?
a gambeson is armor, it's protection, it increases your survivability, it protects against stray cuts. that's what i'm trying to tell you. it doesn't have to be metal to be more protectful than being naked. i don't even know what you're arguing at this point.
>This is a very mistaken train of thought.
i'm not sure what point you're making here - that sometimes mobility is preferable in he mobility/protection tradeoff? isn't that a given? why are you arguing this?
genrty who value mobility over survivability wouldn't don a plate harness in the first place - it's why plate harnesses were worn by rich nobles who had a lot to lose. they wanted to survive, survive, survive, and not get a flesh wound that could get infected and lead them to lose their demense or whatever. if you're donning a suit of plate, it needs to cover the vulnerable areas of your body. if it doesn't it's not doing its job. i am talking pre-gunpowder here, which is the era >>46030805 seems to suggest.
>Holy fuck, get out of here. If that's your line of reasoning then any armor other than a full suit is not full plate either
that is literally my entire point, to which you continue to argue at me unrelated points about how common full plate suits were.
a suit of plate with vulnerable areas exposed has it's survivability decreased to such a degree that it isn't really worth bearing the weight and mobility sacrifice and you would be better off going for a cheaper or lighter kit, all the various kinds which you have spent this thread describing. isn't that also what you're saying? that sometimes you want less armor? you don't put on full plate in those times. that is not the job full plate is designed to fulfill.
>>46033722
Clipping your toes isn't always about looking good, long toe nails will break more easily, and broken nails are likely to hurt like hell, and if they break far enough back likely to get infected.
>>46033720
yeah, all that stuff is designed to be combat ready. but unless you get into specifics, it seems like, at least with most of the extant pieces we have, most weren't actually used in combat, which suggests combat may not have been their primary intended use. but yeah, i'm sure it did happen plenty.
>>46030288
Isn't that the guy that draws dickgirls fucking
>>46033873
Yes, but he apparently uses different accounts for knights and porn.
Thought it is pretty funny when an artists has 10 pages of porn then posts intricate knight/robot designs one day
both accounts for your research
http://www.pixiv.net/member_illust.php?id=617289
http://www.pixiv.net/member.php?id=537853
>>46033789
Well that is more because war was never *that* common relatively. And most of it consisted of raids against poorly defended people or sieges where you sit on your arse for six months.
Obviously its impossible to know what proportion of stuff not in museums is not there because it was damaged in battle. Or how many suits are partial or full replacements for a battle damaged one. Same reason guns issued to prison guards or doctors in modern times are more likely to survive in good condition, seeing use tends to damage things.
>>46033751
did you two wackos really just have a like 10 post debate about the feasibility of armor inspired by an anime girl in a sailor suit with thigh highs with a few bits of metal over top holding a sword. You realize that armor is cheesecake as about 90% of anime female armor is and should not be taken at face value for more than 5 seconds.
That and I think you guys are also oversimplifying the easy of stabbing/cutting ones inner thigh during a melee in the real world where people are moving and not facing you front on. There is a bit more difficulty to this situation than you would immediately think.
>>46032613
>>46032580
>>46032525
>not playing a stack of three elf loli's controlling a suit of armor as a team.
>2016
plebs
>>46034056
lol, yeah, i'm aware how stupid i am for engaging in this. but i'm also in the middle of looking up some armor reference pics for another thing i'm doing so it's kinda fun as well.
but just to be clear, i do realize
>that armor is cheesecake as about 90% of anime female armor is and should not be taken at face value for more than 5 seconds
i'm arguing with the people who think it is feasible and not cheesecake.
>There is a bit more difficulty to this situation than you would immediately think.
that's fair, but in foot combat, your dealing with people running behind you and all around you, you're dealing with walls of spears point at your body, that will glance off downwards to the groin, and things will glance of cuisses as well. and any explosed flesh looks extremely juicy in the middle of a close quarters combat. it stands out and draws the eye. it's going to be a target.
>>46034034
throughout history, war has progressed from more endemic but less intesnse, to sporadic but more intense.
relative to now, war in all its forms was more common, not less. if you were in the position to afford a jewel-encrusted sword, it meant you probably owned significant land, which meant it wasn't unlikely you'd have to or choose to go to war at some point.
>Obviously its impossible to know what proportion of stuff not in museums
that's true.
but also, if could afford a sword with all your jewels on it, why would you use that over a regular sword that was just as good. you might save the expensive one for fear of losing or breaking it, and just bring an equally functional but less expensive one.
>>46031148
They're back, and crazier than ever.
>>46032821
>heels
Could be a female knight variant of earning ones' spurs?
That picture, though.
>swing from the waist, aiming for the belly
>actually hit the hip armor, which causes the weapon to bounce up into the side of the belly or down to chop into the thigh.
Whoops.
>Thrust for the chest but the built-up middle forces the thrust to skid off into the belly or up into the face
Whoops.
I like sexy fantasy armor too. Wholly and realistically impractical. the more fantastical and impractical, the better. I'm just talking to talk.
>>46034572
Is that Leningrad Cowboys?
>>46034273
The entire point is to display your wealth and therefore power, that includes in battle.
And I never said war was more common now than then, the fact remains that most people still never saw much of it. Large battles were rare.
>/tg/ - Armchair Historians
>>46034713
I haven't actually read a post more than two sentences long in months. I just come for art and jokes, because nobody knows what they're talking about and I can't be bothered to parse the facts
>>46034618
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_pointy_boots
>>46033873
That's some really fucking nice cosplay, though.
>>46035769
Get in nerd we're adventuring
>>46035983
Even had the chainmail in the right direction!
>>46031242
Weeb shit pls go
>>46030896
Literal stiletto heels: for when fetish fuel and martial arts combine.
>>46035983
Zoom... Enhance!
>>46031157
>>46031250
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7MYlRzLqD0
Time for the whip.
>>46031157
>everyone around her getting pissed because she's breaking formation
>>46030092
>Lady-knights
Pure virgin sluts
Battle heels might add a couple of inches, which could help depending on the knight.
As for the armor fight going onm pic related is a good medium for lady-knight who is going into battle. Armor is fucking expensive, it's fucking heavy and you also need to move.
You're not going into battle fully armored, especially if you're a foot soldier. Pad up your mid-section, get a reliable helmet and hope for the best. You can live your life without an arm or two.
>>46040384
>You're not going into battle fully armored, especially if you're a foot soldier. Pad up your mid-section, get a reliable helmet and hope for the best. You can live your life without an arm or two.
Uhh no. padded sleeves are easy to make at home, even with leather, wood, and cloth. There's no need to assume that even lowly footsoldiers would not be armored to their maximum personal capacity.
>>46039944
That dragon is realy going for dat ass.
>tfw this is my secret fetish and I thought I was the only one
Lady Knights a best, post more.
>>46040113
Probably would have acted like she was dead and filled her spot in. Morons dont get to join back up.
>>46040421
But it's so hot, nobody wants to be the sweaty guy at the melee
Tough, mature milf knights are great, sadly there are very few of them...
>>46040384
>it's fucking heavy and you also need to move
https://youtu.be/qzTwBQniLSc
I can see battle heels and dresses being much more of a burden.
>>46040421
Have you ever marched in a jumper in summer? Shit fucking sucks.
>>46041075
>PAULDRONS
Isn't there a image of a snob commenting on 'bullshit' aspect of ancient greek armor somewhere?
>>46041101
They are designed so its easier t fit a magical cannon in there when needed.
have more knights in the same setting.
>>46030092
Why has nobody pointed out she's wearing sternum-crushing boobplate?
I expected better from you, /tg/.
>>46043788
>Katana and shield
>Plate
Oh shit nigger what are you doing
>>46037229
>right direction
explain?
>>46040549
>scar over the nose
Moe
>>46032424
Apart from not being able to bend at the waist, that actually looks reasonable. Assuming those lanterns are just painted on, obviously.
>>46043902
that's just how they roll in that world.
>>46030092
Sternum crushed
>>46030288
>>46030805
Stabbed in the taint. Or chafed to death on horseback.
>>46031021
wat
>>46031056
Maimed
>>46031093
Why bother with clothes at that point?
>>46031183
Stabbed in the shoulder
>>46031242
Is this even armor?
>>46031839
Stabbed anywhere
>>46032210
>>46032424
Abdomen and legs don't articulate
>>46032411
That's how Houdini died, you know.
>>46032445
Stabbed in the neck
>>46032468
Stabbed in the stupid motherfucking duckface
>>46032546
Stabbed in the neck or chest
>>46032560
Stabbed in the gut
>>46032609
Sternum crushed
>>46032642
Not sure what she's planning to use that sword for. Is she a lumberjack? Also, the breastplate is poorly designed but not as heinous as some.
>>46032674
Stabs herself in the gut trying to bend over
>>46032744
Ritually sacrificed by allies to provide 8 seconds of chaos resistance
>>46032761
>Those heels
wat
>>46032821
Why bother wearing armor?
>>46033873
Bretty good, but I don't see why she didn't feel the need to armor her chest at all. Are her breasts supposed to be a sort of padded shirt?
>>46035570
Ridiculous if there's mail underneath, useless if there isn't.
>>46039944
Is that a bare leg I see?
>>46040549
Stabbed in the foot
>>46043804
I'm okay with this.
I'm on board with OP's lady warrior fetish, but why does everyone seem to hate competent women so much?
>>46044685
Maybe because we like impractical male armor as well?
Fun sucker
Someone post the "this roman armor is so unrealistic" pic
>>46044685
I don't usually use it because it's a shitty buzzword, but the embodiment of autism, folks.
>>46044792
That looks retarded, too. I mean, I know that my tastes aren't everyone's but at least there exist decent examples of men in functional armor. Why is women in functional armor so insanely obscure?
>>46044857
Because fuck you
>>46030092
>Justify combat heels in a world that doesn't have horses.
As a side-arm
>>46030092
I dont care what anyone says, you wont be able to make complex foot work while balancing on heels that thin.
On the other hand, Im assuming all fantasy armor uses magic to spread out the armor rating all over to make sense of the design, so having the heels convert to a flat shoe, not in look but maybe solid air attachment or something, when in combat would make sense.
>>46032181
>No helmet
>Stepped forward, outside of the shield wall
>got stuck raising her shield way the hell up since she lacks a helmet and is outside the shield wall
Undisciplined rabble / 10, would drum out of my century.
>>46045030
Consider the following : With proper calf muscles, you never want to be on your heel anyways, so it wouldn't matter as long as you have proper grip for the ball of your foot.
>>46045149
>metal plated shoes
I dont think it will grip all that well for the small front surface. Metal plated boots are meant for grass land battle fields where you wont have to worry about stepping on anything sharp, anywhere else and they would be a liability.
>>46045185
You can't actually see the bottoms of her shoes and the toe box looks potentially hinged.
>>46045233
I guess there could be some leather on the bottom, but it would rub off fast. Assuming its a magic world though it wont, hell they dont even have to worry about that, a quick enchantment on the bottom would increase the friction removing that whole problem.
>>46045291
>leather on the bottom, but it would rub off fast
What the actual fuck are you talking about? Shoes just break where you come from?
>>46045342
I wear out my shoes every 6 months. Its not cheap, but I walk alot, and I assume in a world without horses...
True warrior needth no armour.
>>46045392
Okay, so, let's ignore the myriad solutions to that kind of problem (like buying new shoes for combat), and just point out that your complaint has nothing to do with combat heels as it would ruin them as fast as it ruins normal shoes.
>>46044685
no one wants to see your huge opinion post replying to everything
>>46044685
Look its that guy who's not satisfied unless your character sheet has a pic of a suit of armor hanging up in a museum somewhere
What's it like being so autistic you can barely breathe
>>46037644
And then Anon was a faggot.
>>46046727
Lady-knights, anon. Not whore-knights.
>>46046754
Stop the slutshaming. Whores are an essential part of our nations defence.
>tfw no thick ladyknight to spank you
>>46046957
>this is a japanese paladin
Complete aside, but ever since I 'updated' to windows 10 4chan keeps getting connection errors when posting, I have to retry the post a bunch for it to finally work
chrome
>>46047062
>>46047076
>>46047093
>>46046932
Well jousting is just a sport in their world.
And its noted that there's a LOT more people watching when its girl doing it instead of guys. for obvious reason.
>>46047112
posting the OG of female knights
>Its a whore fighter trying to be a knight episode
Aesthetics before all else. The armor can be realistic, or it can be cheesecake, as long as it looks good. I dislike frumpy dull-grey breastplates and full-helms just as much as I dislike korean MMO iron pasties.
>>46047191
my fucking nigga
>>46047281
I can deal with how crappy her armor is, but why the hell does she have English and French symbols on her?
>>46046809
I like that breastplate and I'd love to see the rest of the gear. Legplates, faulds, greaves, etc.
>>46047381
Tudor coat of arms
>>46032468
I am sexually attracted to the piece of armor she is wearing. If it was on a better looking girl who wasn't making that face that would be the hottest picture I can imagine.
>>46047381
>>46048075
English royal coat of arms, when Edward III laid his claim on the French throne and began the hundred years war.
That lady Royalty.
>>46034679
>that includes in battle.
citation needed, basically.
you can't just say 'history was always this way because i want it to be.' the reality is that we don't have almost any historical documents that say which sword X king or Y duke used in battle, and whether they were jeweled or not. it's obvious that jeweled swords were made to show off wealth in civilian settings, and surviving examples show that a lot were made to be battle ready, not just ceremonial. but if you want to make any claim beyond that, you do actually need evidence beyond 'because i say so'.
>>46047191
i dislike whatever you posted the most. it doesn't even know what it wants to be. give me historical realism or cheesecake any day.
>>46047191
>frumpy
>dull-grey
More games need to get out of the medieval fantasy comfort zone, ffs.
>>46030092
>I'm thinking something along the lines of imitating digitigrade lizard demons to look scarier?
>OH SHIT YOU GUYS, SHE'S A FEW INCHES TALL THAN I THOUGHT!
>THIS BAD GRRRL MEANS BUSINESS!
>RUN!
>>46049854
>medieval fantasy comfort zone
But muh LOTR
>>46030288
>but board meetings aren't decided by who is the last (wo)man standing.
they should be
>>46049868
There's a world of difference being the taller than the average person in a crowd. Manlet.
>>46049911
Camelry
Anyone got a knight girl who looks kinda like Elsa? I could use it for the near future.
>>46043804
>Why has nobody pointed out she's wearing sternum-crushing boobplate?
Because we're not angry tumblr feminists who try to combat sexiness with flawed logic.
If something hits you hard enough to crumple your breastplate it's going to fuck you up no matter if it's boob shaped or not.
Boob windows are obviously retarded and a major health hazard, but putting jugs on your breastplate doesn't have to be. Hell, there's nothing saying there's not a flat piece of steel underneath it and that the bodacious prow is just decoration.
>>46044857
It's really not, at least not on /tg/. Art of well-armored female characters shows up on /tg/ all the time, you just need to lurk more.
![uniform[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/YYugPDi.jpg "uniform[1].jpg")
>>46044685
>Arms cut off
>Legs cut off
>Stabbed in the armpit
>Stabbed in the dick
>Stabbed in the ass
>Stabbed in the neck
>Stabbed in the face
As usual, Italians can't do anything right.
>>46050280
the boobplate complainers are boring and i don't personally care about whether someone draws a character with boobplate, but you are wrong that the argument against boobplate is 'flawed logic'. not understanding how breastplates work is not the same as the person complaining having flawed logic. if boobplate or flat breastplates were better, over the hundreds of years of the high and late middle ages, they would have developed into that shape, as armor was designed to be functional. there are examples of early flat breastplates but they fell out of favour.
the best breastplates are rounded or have a forward arch along the vertical center. the function of that is to deflect blows, leading to the breastplate taking less impact, leading to two things:
1. it not being crushed by blows that would crush flat plate, as the energy is deflected by the shape of the plate.
2. your sternum not taking the impact of blows that don't crush the breastplate, but still transmit force to your body.
the logic behind boobplate being bad is that instead of deflecting blows away from the sternum, it deflects them into the sternum, regardless of whether there's anything under them or not. you could take a blow on the sternum that doesn't crumple the armor but still concentrates the force right between the boobs of the plate and that inner ridge goes right into your sternum and wind yous. with an arched breastplate that wouldn't happen.
the logic of having arched forms on breastplates is the same reason you have hounskull bascinets - if you take a lance blow to the face, you want a faceplate with a steep angle pointing in the direction of the lance, leading to the lance being deflected. imagine having a concave helmet, or a helmet with a valley along the vertical center - a lance blow would be caught and directed into your face. it's not a better design.
cont.
>>46050576
that said, the image in the OP pic is actually seems like it would be pretty decent. the combined underboob kind of acts as a stop rib (it'd be better if it pointed downwards though), and the cleavage valley is far enough away from the sternum to not directly press into it, so i personally wouldn't waste time complaining about it.
>>46050438
>has a shield that covers the entire body
>>46050588
>has a shield that covers the entire body
Waist and everything above it ground into a fine paste, including both hands.
>he probably lifts it during battle
Ankles and head cut off. No wonder Latin is a dead language.
>>46050588
That shield is only half as tall as the soldier, it doesn't cover the entire body. Not without hunching over, and that's terrible for the back.
>>46046771
That image always cracks me up. Hate to think what bare mail does to the unprotected vag. Also, how the fuck do you put on a mail leotard?
>>46049854
>'medieval' fantasy comfort zone
Fixed
>>46050652
i don't understand. i'm pretty sure his head and shoulders are armored.
>>46050662
ah, guy who doesn't understand how shields work. you know the attacker's attack comes from his arm? and when you hold your shield out a few centimeters, the line between your attacker's arm and your feet is covered?
>>46050708
That works for most of these ladyknights too: the beef you have with them would be solved with a shield. Full plate is only "neccessary" when you're abandoning a shield for a two handed weapon.
>>46050801
do i have a beef with them? i dig cheesecake, like i said at least twice already. i'm arguing with people who can't tell the difference between reality and cheesecake.
>Full plate is only "neccessary" when you're abandoning a shield for a two handed weapon
>would be solved with a shield
that's what i've been saying this whole thread. now you understand.
>>46050666
>Hate to think what bare mail does to the unprotected vag
one of the funniest memories was a group of us at a gaming convention... fuck, nearly 20 years ago, on a university campus. and at the far end of a long walk we saw a girl in mail bikini outfit, late for a costume event bit.
and at about 30-40m away, we started hearing the "chink-chink-chink" noises as she jogged along trying to get to the event that'd already started.
and as we got to about 20m away, the "ow! ow! ah!" noises she was making, as she'd not put plasters over sensitive bits, which were getting bitten....
And the fact that it was the guys in the group all looking sympathetic, while the three women in the group collapsed in hysterics at this.
>>46050801
>>46050883
> Full plate is only "neccessary" when you're abandoning a shield for a two handed weapon.
you have that backwards.
you only abandon the shield, and start to use a two-handed weapon, when full plate is available, because you need to use two-handed weapons to counter it.
Prior to that, there's no point. mail and coats of plate, etc, provide sufficient protection against single-handed weapons, but also remain vulnerable to a degree. therefore, its a better tradeoff to use a 1h weapon and gain the additional coverage of a shield. Full plate harnesses come along, and you need the extra force, and have additional protection, so a 2h weapon and no shield is more effective.
Cause and effect. you dont have one without the other.
How did we get this far without glorious she-goat?
>>46050883
>i'm arguing with people who can't tell the difference between reality and cheesecake.
As evidenced by the multiple pics of glorious lorica segmentata armor, you clearly have no apreciation for what constitutes realistic armor. Armor has never in the history of warfare, barring a few cases, been designed with the intent of providing absolute protection from every conceivable angle. In almost every instance armor design was a tradeoff between providing limited protection to vital regions of the body and weight.
>>46050951
>Claiming two handed weapons were developed or deployed to counter full plate armor
>Thinking bigger sword means better armor penetration
>>46051215
there is a reason the classic main weapon dor a knight in full plate to foot is a mace or warhammer
>>46051215
>Thinking bigger sword means better armor penetration
It does. It means more leverage when you go to stab someone in the brain with a crossguard. Polearms didn't need armor to evolve, though. They've always been superior for formation fighting.
>>46032580
On one fantasy campaign a while ago, one of our party members was a foul-mouthed, tomboyish female Fighter we'd picked up in a tavern on the way out of the capital city. She owed more money than she had to the tavern owner for an evening's worth of drinking and some minor property damage, so we paid off her debt on her promise to join our troop of adventurers.
Because she was short and scrappy and always wore this clunky, oversized suit of armor everywhere she went, it came as a big surprise when we eventually discovered that she actually had a pair of cartoonishly huge breasts hidden under all that plate and chain and leather. We found out that she wore her armor at almost all times because she wanted to be taken seriously as a badass adventurer when she hit the taverns and couldn't afford to keep paying for the collateral damage she'd cause beating up blatant oglers.
>>46050229
>>46051400
>>46050951
>>46051407
>>46051414
>>46051413
Not pictured: The hundreds of arrows in her legs...
>>46051310
You seem to be neglecting the fact that the needle point rapiers and other renaissance era swords were a direct response to the development of full plate armor. You don't want a 5 foot sword to find a gap in a knight's armor, you want a short, skinny blade to get between the plates.
>>46051421
DM, mother of two and feminist reporting in:
Realismfags are and always will be cancer. Give me boobplate or give me death.
>>46030092
Look up your own porn.
>>46051441
>>46051452
very well, death it is.
>>46051470
>>46051430
Rapiers were developed as dueling weapons for unarmored civilians. Remember, every longsword has a rondel hidden inside.
>>46051484
Throne Watcher is a man, you know.
>>46033420
Who's this semen demon?
![[Italy] [1390-1400] Breastplate 1 2.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/CcWVGRd.jpg "[Italy] [1390-1400] Breastplate 1 2.jpg")
>>46051162
the mechanical engineer understands the concept of structural integrity, but as i elaborated in this >>46050576 post, structural integrity is not the main concern of boobplate - it's the application of force and how it translates to the body. unless you go for a kind of boobplate where the plate is far away from the chest, like in the OP pic (which has a decent design), and we're talking about something like >>46050454 or >>46050379 or >>46050229, the issue is twofold:
1. the cleavage valley or inner ridge of the armor transfers force directly into the sternum, when it gets a hard blow like one from a flanged mace, a poleaxe, a lance, or pike braced against the ground (remember, if you were wearing full plate, there's a good chance you were a mounted man-at-arms (this includes knights)). this has nothing to do with whether the breastplate is actually damaged or dented. you want a gap between the plate and your chest so the force goes into the parts of the plate touching your body, which would be your shoulders and waist, not your chest/lungs.
2. the shape of the cleavage valley works as a reverse stop rib. if you don't know what a stop rib is, it's the v-shaped thing here. when you get a direct blow from a low angle, like from a spear or pike held at the waist, it will naturally glance up, along the shape of the breastplate, and be directed into the throat. you have a stop rib to make sure those glancing blows are directed off the shoulders instead. when you have boobplate (without a stop rib, which the 3 pics linked above don't have), it does the reverse, and either funnels the blow through the cleavage valley right into the throat, or directs it out into the often less-armoured under arm or armpit (usually these would just have mail, as rerebraces didn't always go all the way around the arm).
i hope this helps you understand why in hundreds of years of development, people figured out boobplate wasn't better than a normal convex breastplate.
>>46051482
>>46051893
however, to add, as you should clearly be able to see, the OP pic still has the reverse stop rib issue - blows not directly to the center would would be directed by the underboob to the underarms, which aren't armored by anything except clothing.
>>46051162
>different periods had different kinds of armor
>the mobility/protection tradeoff exists
cool man. are you gonna keep up that strawman forever? you're arguing against a point i'm not making.
>>46050951
>shields fell out of favour after plate armor started becoming widely used
no shit.
>>46051310
>It does.
this is true, the bigger the weapon, the more easy it is to concuss someone wearing armor. you don't even need to penetrate or even dent the armor.
>stab someone in the brain with a crossguard
also this.
>Polearms didn't need armor to evolve, though. They've always been superior for formation fighting.
and this.
>>46051910
>artist been this salty
>>46052362
>>46052362
I always thought that image was funny. I think you're the salty one if you can't appreciate it.
>>46054026
>You just don't get it.
The salt is strong.
>>46054104
But why, anon? What makes you so mad about it? How is it even affecting you?
>>46054211
