Be it two thousand years ago or 500 years ago. Sexy armor proves that humans haven’t really changed.
Kings and generals don’t really find themselves alone on the front lines. The armor is nearly ceremonial, no one is supposed to take a shot at the king. Even if the king were expected to visit the front lines.
As such, kings, princes and other nobles never had practical armor. It’s all armor-fashion and status symbols (including sexualization, when said sexualization was in fashion).
I believe most full plate armor was hardly practical either, some being so heavy that basically required the wearer to be mounted. Most foot soldiers would wear chain armor with pieces of plate here and there, and thats only the extremely rich who could afford things like that. Full plate also heavily limited your movement, many battles by extremely well geared soldiers were lost because they couldnt out maneuver barely armored militia, or even just rain. Knights wearing full plate needed help to stand if they were toppled! Its funny when people talk about full plate being ‘practical’ and ‘realistic’ when it was mostly a sign of status, ornamental and incredibly impractical.
This is a common misconception but it’s just not true. As you can see in this video mobility is hardly a problem. It certainly would be possible that a piece could be bent or damaged badly enough to hinder you, but a properly fit set is going to let you do whatever you need to do in a battle. You are certainly right that it was expensive though, full plate was similar to buying a luxury car. It was rare but not that rare, a sign of wealth and social class but not like only kings could wear it. And it certainly was not strictly ornamental.
Most foot soldiers would wear chain armor with pieces of plate here and there, and thats only the extremely rich who could afford things like that.
Mail was much too expensive to produce to outfit “Most foot soldiers” with. For much of the middle ages, most foot soldiers wore some kind of Gambeson and a helmet. A mail hauberk was the next step up, as it was still cheaper than a full mail shirt.
Plate cuirasses became common among the more wealthy in the late middle ages. By the early modern period, when the Almain Rivet (half-armour) became cheap enough, you’d see smaller professional armies be outfitted with them. But the common peasantry generally couldn’t afford either for the longest time.
Its funny when people talk about full plate being ‘practical’ and ‘realistic’ when it was mostly a sign of status, ornamental and incredibly impractical.
As a rule, if something didn’t work in war, people wisened up and stopped doing it. They weren’t stupid, just because they didn’t have the same wealth of knowledge thay we do.
Knights didn’t want to impress and get killed, they wanted to win and live. No amount of status will help you if your opponents dance on your grave. If plate was as much of a liability as you claim, it wouldn’t have become more popular, comprehensive and accordingly expensive over time, until Gunpowder started accelerating weapons development far beyond anything protection could keep up with.
You’re right that full plate was often worn by heavy cavalry, both as a matter of wealth and as a matter of utility. Heavy Cavalry were shock troops, morale breakers, designed to make your (often not professionally trained) soldiers falter, break order, open gaps in their ranks to get out of the way of the thundering beast charging at them. The appearance added to the indimidation, but it also helped protect on the way to and through the infantry lines.
There were mounted heavy infantry too that would ride to battle, then dismount and advance with the soldiery, and there too did plate help protect. It’s easier to confidently walk into a line of levied peasants pointing spears at you if you’re hard to actually wound.
In either case they were made of much thinner plate than some pop culture depictions would make them out to be - about 20-30kg. A modern soldier’s kit isn’t lighter than that.
many battles by extremely well geared soldiers were lost because they couldnt out maneuver barely armored militia, or even just rain.
Most battles that saw heavy cavalry lose were because of miscalculations, not because the armour made them immobile. If infantry in good order maintained cohesion, but the cavalry kept charging instead of turning to feint, they likely got stuck in a melee where numbers would be against them. If they rode into heavy missile fire, no amount of mobility will magically let them dodge the arrows, but a good plate would increase your chances of survival. If they got stuck in the mud as sitting ducks, that was because horses don’t always deal well with running across uneven ground, particularly with sudden pitfalls where the ground is softer, and even more if heavy rain and blinders impeded their vision.
Yes, bodkin arrows from a sufficiently powerful warbow at sufficiently short ranges and steep angles of impact may well penetrate plate, particularly the less solid visors, and arrows in general bear a risk of felling your horse, but some armour is better than no armour.
Like I said, if it didn’t help in battle, they wouldn’t go to such lengths and expenses to produce it and wear it to battle. They’d wear it to ceremonies, to parades and to tourneys, but not to war.
@Dagnet@dragontamer
I saw a video of a guy doing breaststroke in full plate mail once. Sure, it was rough for him, and he was already pretty fucking good at swimming, but he didn’t sink like metal Mario or anything like that.
Most mounted knights don’t really need crotch protection. Their saddles had a kind of shields projecting up for that purpose. If they get dismounted in a melee, that might be a different situation, but even then, the codpiece will probably not be the weakest part of that armour.
I don’t know, this is starting to sound like a separate discussion with separate issues, and as a result it feels like goalpost moving.
The issue with women’s fantasy armour has long been that it exists for the Male Gaze, as a trope that is propagated by men for the purpose of titilizing men. It’s objectifying the female form, and doing so in a way that does not include women in the discussion at all.
The second image, instead of being a continuation of that, just feels like fashion, and complaints about it land as “no one has ever cared about aesthetics in a suit of armour” which is a totally false take and indefensible platform.
I raise you Emperor Ferdinand I Armor, specifically it’s Codpiece.
I’m just saying. Sexualized armor is very historical.
Doesn’t make it and less ridiculous to try and be sexy in a situation where you need protection to prevent dying.
True. But it keeps happening.
Be it two thousand years ago or 500 years ago. Sexy armor proves that humans haven’t really changed.
Kings and generals don’t really find themselves alone on the front lines. The armor is nearly ceremonial, no one is supposed to take a shot at the king. Even if the king were expected to visit the front lines.
As such, kings, princes and other nobles never had practical armor. It’s all armor-fashion and status symbols (including sexualization, when said sexualization was in fashion).
Do we have modern sexualized plate carriers? I know we have the cat-ear helmet bit, but how far can we go?
Dunno about personal armor but we have nekkid furry ladies on planes and tanks… humans keep being thirsty.
Ok.
zxro
I believe most full plate armor was hardly practical either, some being so heavy that basically required the wearer to be mounted. Most foot soldiers would wear chain armor with pieces of plate here and there, and thats only the extremely rich who could afford things like that. Full plate also heavily limited your movement, many battles by extremely well geared soldiers were lost because they couldnt out maneuver barely armored militia, or even just rain. Knights wearing full plate needed help to stand if they were toppled! Its funny when people talk about full plate being ‘practical’ and ‘realistic’ when it was mostly a sign of status, ornamental and incredibly impractical.
This is a common misconception but it’s just not true. As you can see in this video mobility is hardly a problem. It certainly would be possible that a piece could be bent or damaged badly enough to hinder you, but a properly fit set is going to let you do whatever you need to do in a battle. You are certainly right that it was expensive though, full plate was similar to buying a luxury car. It was rare but not that rare, a sign of wealth and social class but not like only kings could wear it. And it certainly was not strictly ornamental.
deleted by creator
Mail was much too expensive to produce to outfit “Most foot soldiers” with. For much of the middle ages, most foot soldiers wore some kind of Gambeson and a helmet. A mail hauberk was the next step up, as it was still cheaper than a full mail shirt.
Plate cuirasses became common among the more wealthy in the late middle ages. By the early modern period, when the Almain Rivet (half-armour) became cheap enough, you’d see smaller professional armies be outfitted with them. But the common peasantry generally couldn’t afford either for the longest time.
As a rule, if something didn’t work in war, people wisened up and stopped doing it. They weren’t stupid, just because they didn’t have the same wealth of knowledge thay we do.
Knights didn’t want to impress and get killed, they wanted to win and live. No amount of status will help you if your opponents dance on your grave. If plate was as much of a liability as you claim, it wouldn’t have become more popular, comprehensive and accordingly expensive over time, until Gunpowder started accelerating weapons development far beyond anything protection could keep up with.
You’re right that full plate was often worn by heavy cavalry, both as a matter of wealth and as a matter of utility. Heavy Cavalry were shock troops, morale breakers, designed to make your (often not professionally trained) soldiers falter, break order, open gaps in their ranks to get out of the way of the thundering beast charging at them. The appearance added to the indimidation, but it also helped protect on the way to and through the infantry lines.
There were mounted heavy infantry too that would ride to battle, then dismount and advance with the soldiery, and there too did plate help protect. It’s easier to confidently walk into a line of levied peasants pointing spears at you if you’re hard to actually wound.
In either case they were made of much thinner plate than some pop culture depictions would make them out to be - about 20-30kg. A modern soldier’s kit isn’t lighter than that.
Most battles that saw heavy cavalry lose were because of miscalculations, not because the armour made them immobile. If infantry in good order maintained cohesion, but the cavalry kept charging instead of turning to feint, they likely got stuck in a melee where numbers would be against them. If they rode into heavy missile fire, no amount of mobility will magically let them dodge the arrows, but a good plate would increase your chances of survival. If they got stuck in the mud as sitting ducks, that was because horses don’t always deal well with running across uneven ground, particularly with sudden pitfalls where the ground is softer, and even more if heavy rain and blinders impeded their vision.
Yes, bodkin arrows from a sufficiently powerful warbow at sufficiently short ranges and steep angles of impact may well penetrate plate, particularly the less solid visors, and arrows in general bear a risk of felling your horse, but some armour is better than no armour.
Like I said, if it didn’t help in battle, they wouldn’t go to such lengths and expenses to produce it and wear it to battle. They’d wear it to ceremonies, to parades and to tourneys, but not to war.
I’ll leave you with this demonstration of mobility
@Dagnet @dragontamer
I saw a video of a guy doing breaststroke in full plate mail once. Sure, it was rough for him, and he was already pretty fucking good at swimming, but he didn’t sink like metal Mario or anything like that.
Almost completely wrong
Something about humans relates sex and danger. We like having them together
You might want to rephrase that. It would be very easy to misinterpret.
Ah, you mean danger cosplay. Yeah, ok. Even kinksters have safe words and things like safe, sane, and consensual.
Most mounted knights don’t really need crotch protection. Their saddles had a kind of shields projecting up for that purpose. If they get dismounted in a melee, that might be a different situation, but even then, the codpiece will probably not be the weakest part of that armour.
I don’t know, this is starting to sound like a separate discussion with separate issues, and as a result it feels like goalpost moving.
The issue with women’s fantasy armour has long been that it exists for the Male Gaze, as a trope that is propagated by men for the purpose of titilizing men. It’s objectifying the female form, and doing so in a way that does not include women in the discussion at all.
The second image, instead of being a continuation of that, just feels like fashion, and complaints about it land as “no one has ever cared about aesthetics in a suit of armour” which is a totally false take and indefensible platform.