1 / 36
Feb 2019

Before anyone jumps on me, I don't mean "booby armor is great; I don't see why people hate it".

I just want to know what the actual structural problems are, for future reference. Here is all the information I have:

-Armor with "cups" for the breasts isn't actually too bad...unless you plan to be in an actual swordfight, or anything with sharp objects. A good breastplate forces a sharp weapon to glance off your chest; however, the "valley" between the cups actually directs the weapon straight into your heart. :[

-You need MORE. Real knights didn't walk around in metal bikinis for a reason; a few inches of iron and a cute thingamajig on your arm aren't going to protect you. If you're not going to wear enough armor, you might as well wear none and keep the speed advantage. (okay, that one's kind of obvious)

-Heels are a bit tricky...of course, the only stilettos you should go to war with are the swords. ;] But when it comes to more reasonably-sized heels, I think there's wiggle room. Personally, my feet enjoy a few extra centimeters off the ground; flat shoes actually make them ache faster. But I only do wedge heels, and small ones at that (2 in. max). Anything with a flat, wide heel will do me more good than harm.

So, truth or poppycock? And what other things should I think about? I'm new to armor design, and I'd like to hear from those with experience.

  • created

    Feb '19
  • last reply

    Apr 13
  • 35

    replies

  • 10.3k

    views

  • 21

    users

  • 105

    likes

  • 16

    links

1 weight.

Males and females human skeletons evolved differently for different load bearing weights in different areas. Sure, women carry fabric weight in giant gowns, corsets made of metal, and hoopskirts made of MORE metal. But keep in mind with the skirts and corsets 90% of that weight is rested on their hip bones and is then spread out over their legs. Yes, this will cause their spine a lot of pain and results in injury; one reason why we don't do it today. But those are also largely hollow objects and a full outfit could weigh easily 40 lbs, more if the unlucky chick is dressed in heavier fabrics like wool.
www.fashion-era.com/early_victorian_fashion.htm8
However, some armors could be as light as 55 lbs.
https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/aams/hd_aams.htm6
If you're in, say Europe, odds are you'll be in the Bronze age type of weaponry which is 90% metal armor / chain mail / very little fabric. Keep in mind that those armors required people to dress you into your armor usually and it wasn't an easy task for either party. Also note that the calvary knights ride on horses because it's harder for them to walk and they will move slower while on the ground.

2 terrain.

Again, Europe has different areas of terrain. Think of Lord of the Ring movies if you aren't familiar with Europe topography - mountains, rocks, forest, and flat lands. most battles throughout land-waged history took place in certain areas of flat lands. The battle of Marathon took place in a very small physical area.

3 speed.

As you mentioned, this is important in battle. Part of the reason the North won over the South in the US Civil War was due to the invention and wide-spread use of a faster gun. Speed isn't everything, as the Battle of Marathon wisely proves, but it is a thing to keep in mind. And really what you mean here is "balance". Which covers the heel portion. If you have all of your weight on your toes and are required to thrust forward with a lance or sword and you know it's going to hit something, you need to be able to ground yourself for that force that will be defending. Now, if you're thrusting forward and won't be hitting anything besides something to propel you farther forward (pole jumping), then you need: Access to your entire foot and range of balance which means no heels. "I can run in heels!" isn't the same as "I can block a 250 lbs football linebacker running at me at top speed with a full-body metal shield and not slide 5 ft back without falling over". In heels, you'd be flat on your butt with the shield on top of you because your balance would be yanked off. Also, in general shoe-building from what I recall, heels are some of the worse designed portions and hasn't changed engingeering wise for decades. It puts your foot into a forward arch which shifts the bulk of your trunk weight forward from "standing over your feet evenly" to "standing in front of your feet evenly", which is why you "stand on your toes". I also vaguely recall something about heels, even chunky ones, have a breaking point to snap off due to their poor engineering, and that happening in battle will mean a sudden loss of balance and will result in the enemy killing you.

4 armor with holes

So actually, the real reason we wore tones of armor over our chests and heads are - surprise! - we have no exoskeleton. I won't go into all of the details, since that's better explained in a Spiderman theory of all things, but generally the idea is: Our bodies aren't designed to be hit against from the outside and the impact will cause our innards to slosh around and rupture, if not from the impact, from the impaling. We are literally very squishy.

actually boobs armour is impossible because aside from what you had said, if you wearing armour then beneath that layer of metal must have another layer of padded armour (gambeson and the like) for shock absorption (or a warhammer or a mere wooden club to the chest is going to mess you up real good) and then beneath that is you own clothes. No one naked beneath the metal armour, if anyone try that stun, that person is going to be cook alive when standing under the sun, or turn into a human Popsicle when the weather is cold.

I remember many years ago that a suit of plate armor was discovered in an old basement in France. The speculation at the time was that the suit may have been built for and used by Joan of Arc. On what was this speculation based? Were there any names or distinguishing religious icons on it? Nope, it looked completely normal and undistinctive for that time period. The reason it was associated with Joan was simply its size. That is the defining characteristic of female armor. An average woman cannot take an average suit of mass produced armor in any style that was engineered for an average man and fill it well. Two inches less in height equates to huge difference in mass.

That reminds me why the silk road was so important - silk fabric is one of the materials whose woven strength can stand up to puncture from swords/lances and still breathes so you don't cook alive in it.

also the "western armour is heavy and cumbersome" is totally absurd
here a video to debunk that

the only real problem with western amour is that they trap a lot of body heat, so you character need to carry a lot of water when wearing it

Nostalgicroxas, I don't think you mean "stand up to" exactly. Silk cloth was used underneath Mongolian armors. The purpose of silk specifically for the Mongolians was not to block the point of an arrow but to wrap around the arrowhead. It made extraction easier and less damaging. Anyway, that is the way I heard it.

@Samuraiflame The last picture is the best one XD

About breasts protection... maybe its a bit out of topic, but I've recalled, then when I've visited club of knife fighting, we have used them on training and competitions. There are different kinds of them, for example:


So, I think that knight-style armor for women may contain a special design part for this purpose as well, since women brests are bigger and more vulnerable than mens.
And in general... it is obvious that female armor should protect all body parts, which male armor does. But it is also obvious why many of fantasy authors don't follow this rule. :wink:

Probably. I recall seeing it on some documentary about the silk road or Asian warfare. The picture I'm remembering is that a linen tunic cut with a sword would be decimated by the tearing both to the eye and under the microscope, and the silk tunic would show less damage and still be mostly intact under the microscope. It was something specifically about how plant fibers Europe was using would breakdown and be impossible to repair, while the silk could be patched easily without further damaging the garment.
Interestingly, I recall something like this in various fantasy games - where the "base starting out" armors are all cotton and hemp, and the mid-top tier armors are silken.

This kind of reminds me how sailcloth is such an odd woven and treated material. It looks like waxed canvas but doesn't feel like it at all, and certainly doesn't behave like it.

I assume we're all reasonably familiar with Saber give Fate/Stay Night and the its like are one of the biggest anime franchises but for those who aren't:


This is one of the most practical versions of the female knight you can really get. Contrary to popular belief, skirts like this are not an issue to fight in unless they're floor length posing a trip risk. Petite coats have been shown of offer a decent amount of protection from swords and daggers, although less from projectiles. All her torso is covered and the curve deflects the blow. The large shoulders allow for a full range of movement and the half skirt protects her from attack from behind while anyone wanting to attack the vulnerable front as to come into the danger zone of her sword. How high up her neck the proection goes depends on the artist. And is also notable that while not being identical, it is not incredibly different to the male version:

Some of the Fate/ designs are more realistic/fanservicey than others but Saber generally has a decent amount of armour.

Heels are not as bad as people believe. A low heel, as you say, isn't a big deal. And lets face it, in battle you're generally not running far, especially if you're in armour. I don't know how many people here have ever seen ballroom dancers, but I doubt you're going to be going to be doing much more balancing than that. If you're riding a horse, a decent heel is 110% vital. There's a reason riding boots all have a heel, even if not a huge one. Flat shoes are not good for your either.

well, silk does produced a lot of friction, and the Japanese use it to create a kind of anti-arrow cloak called "horo" the cloak will blow up like a parachute when they riding and thus when pursuing enemy shoot arrow at the samurai the parachute will have chance to caught the arrow, using a principle similar to today kevlar vest. it even had been tested by the mythbuster

Ahhhh! I just recently found some really good vids on this (and i want people to watch more of this boi so even tho weve already talked about it im linking him anyways)

First

and second

And heres a bonus!

I very much agree with most of his points. Boob armor is perfectly fine and when done well it looks wonderful and really brings out the form of a women which is what they did back in the day to males with male armor, considering most of these conversations pop up cause of fantasy my answer is HECK WITH IT! ITS fantasy! so long as you're reasoninings for boob armor are internally consistent its fine ^^

The only thing i cant really find in the videos relating to what you mentioned is heels. I dont think they used heels for male armor and i have a feeling they wouldn't use it for females either, as heels originally where used for high fashion for men (yes men!) Most royalty wore them both because it was fancy and because it made them look taller before women and common folk started to adopt them into their every day fashion. Tho in a fantasy setting... again anything goes but i personally would NEVER put heels (that where not at least thick and stable) on my peeps in armor, male or female, heels are awful for balance, maneuvering and running which are important parts to any knight that wasn't on horse back (altho i suppose if you never got off your horse in combat it wouldn't be THAT big of a deal)

Battle dresses are fine but i personally hate the aesthetic of them for the simple fact you got a bunch of cloth flying around your legs and could cause balancing issues as well as give your enemy more things to try and grab and trip you up with. Not to mention simply most women like joan of arch and other women just... simply put on male armor.

aaannnnnd I did make a comic about this way way back in the college years (shameless self permotion https://tapas.io/episode/10796410 ) It was more for fun and to prove that they should give me a degree so... i would no longer call it my best work, but im still really proud of it.

I love this thread btw Doki <3

If you've ever worn armor or a corset, you have probably realized that those things are rigid but your body is squishy. Having a cup shaped breastplate sounds like the silliest thing to have, because you risk the uneven parts press against your boobs when you move, which will hurt. Also, back then breast support wasn't like today, and it would not give the cup shaped chest that you see nowadays. Most importantly, as far as I can remember, the historical found female armors had no difference in chest shape. It was a general size thing mostly.

This all the way!! This is the point i make whenever topics of "sexist clothing/sexualization of women in media" comes up: the clothing and bodytypes themselves aren't sexist. Unrealistic? Yeah sure. But it is fiction.
The sexism lies in whether or not characters of all genders are treated the same.

There's no problem with it. It's not meant to be practical. It's not meant to make sense. if you don't want it to feel a way, you make your own. If you just don't care, and just want uniquely designed characters, then that's that. It's fantasy. It doesn't need to make sense. The more you make fantasy like reality, the less inspired things get.

I just had to design some armor for female guards and admittedly this it barely more reasonable than bikini armor ... but sometimes practical just doesn't work in regards to visual design.

But I tried not to make it about sex appeal.