by AyyaSap Hello, armorkini! by uryenn Looks cute, but you're asking to be killed. by jdelnido Okay, so it's the leather Vampirella by KenshjnPark Because yeah, that looks practical… as well as comfortable… No.
by another wanderer WHY do people think armor looks like this from behind? by AyyaSap This character is SUPPOSED to be a warrior… At a party… maybe? by Davidelle And this is supposed to be a druid. ::Raises one eyebrow.:: Fascinating. by Lorandesore "Forgive me, for I seem to have forgotten to finish getting dressed this morning." by Tira-Owl "I only protect the right half of my body."
for more amazing and completely unexpected discoveries, tune in tonight, at 12!
Wait, this just in, I'm getting breaking news from our Waterdeep office: obtuse area man misses point completely. We'll have more on this story as it develops.
What are those things called? Full body cock socks? banana hammock split? I don't know about not being able to take them seriously they bring that primal fear I would be two afraid of what might happen should I lose. It would be like a battle with Jeffrey Dahmer.
I think the armor types are more to do with combat style than objectifying females. Females most often have more speed, dexterity, and are limber so there armors are light so that these attributes are not restrained. As far as sexy goes it is a tool in it self and many armors are made to enhance their ability to charm dumb brutes. I and most other men are brutes our natural strength while fit for many skills limits our perception; Direct and to the point we most often rely on Intelligence rather than wisdom.
@Schneidend What point? This entire thread is 11 pages of aimless kvetching.
The type of content you're all rabidly foaming over is purposefully created to appeal to a certain demographic (15-30yo males); it's *designed* to titillate. Bitching about it is like crying over the calorie count in chocolate chip cookies. We all know it's bad, but it's there for a reason, and there are certain segments of the population who it's marketed toward and who end up consuming it.
Ranting about half-naked chicks in fantasy is the equivalent of whining about the decibel level at a Nascar rally; in both cases, it's beyond useless. I swear, it's like you people are 11 years old, and just discovered the internet or something.
@lordkim WHY WOULD YOU SHOW US THIS, KILL IT WITH FIRE. OH GOD MY EYES!!!!!!!!!.....on a side note i could show you all the crazy outfits from dead or alive if we are bringing fighting games but im pretty sure despite the 12 rating of the game this thread would go up to 18+ XD
@Schneidend What point? This entire thread is 11 pages of aimless kvetching.
The type of content you're all rabidly foaming over is purposefully created to appeal to a certain demographic (15-30yo males); it's *designed* to titillate. Bitching about it is like crying over the calorie count in chocolate chip cookies. We all know it's bad, but it's there for a reason, and there are certain segments of the population who it's marketed toward and who end up consuming it.
Ranting about half-naked chicks in fantasy is the equivalent of whining about the decibel level at a Nascar rally; in both cases, it's beyond useless. I swear, it's like you people are 11 years old, and just discovered the internet or something.
Sex sells. Deal with it.
The problem we have with it is not that it is consumed, obviously there's a market for everything, but that it is far and away the largest portion of fantasy art featuring female characters, and it only seems to be getting more prolific despite growing numbers of female gamers and queer male gamers, rather than less. This kind of art is what will come up most often in a Google search and it makes various fandoms look ridiculous. Sure, there's a market, but what happens when it turns off people from an otherwise great franchise because a developer/writer/publisher relied on "sex sells"? It also gives annoying pundits like Anita Sarkesian more ammunition.
These sorts of portrayals of women, especially when they represent a majority, are part of why sci-fi and fantasy (barring a few canon instances like Tolkien or Verne) have virtually no credibility in literary criticism. Comic books are having the same problem, and if any critical analysis does touch on comic books, they usually do so with the male characters only because the majority of the female characters are being posed ridiculously and just there to be hawt babes, unless a particular female character really fits the thesis, like Power Girl and her various explanations for the boob window over the years. As an English major, I'd be pretty stoked if I could talk about Dresden Files or Baldur's Gate (or insert fantasy franchise of your choice) in papers more often, but sadly that's just not possible with 90% of professors.
to the apparent flame war brewing in this thread: keep it civil, and keep arguments on another page! this thread is to laugh at ba- unrealistic fantasy art, and if you look throughout the pages i and several others have posted good images too, why? because after or while searching for unrealistic ones we find the awesome images and we (or i at least) like sharing them too!
here's a really cool one! (dont know who made it but it was on google so, credit to whoever did it)
i only need paint to protect me!!!! (Guul draz vampire, Steve Argyle)
I love the 'but they're so nimble' argument (sarcastically speaking). It's a silly and completely ridiculous argument that is so very distanced from any semblance of reality. Nimble armor still has to protect from the elements, brambles and the like, to say nothing of stray missile weapons, splinters and whatever else can happen. Armor became heavier and more protective until firearms made it all but obsolete (there is a resurgence of body armor, now that Kevlar and other materials are coming online) - to armor against gunpowder weapons would be prohibitively expense and so heavy that the protected person(s) would be immobile.
These are as nimble as they can be. Notice that they're not in g-strings with bare buttocks and midriffs?
Flat chest (so you don't direct points of weapons between the bulbous bits), covered arms, etc. This was made to actually protect the wearer, while allowing her mobility. When you actually get hurt by the perils of the battlefield, you protect against what can happen there. Unless the combat is drunken mud-wrestling, beachwear doesn't cut it.
Even though these armors look provocative they are still functional they restrict breast movement and protect sensitive areas. I have been a martial artist for more than 16 years and am both a competitive and street fighter. I have personally fought two men with knifes and won without injury I would prefer to wear nothing as even cotton can impair movement. Anyone that has any combat experience will tell you if your strategy is to take damage it isn't a good one. Heavy armors were used because it would increase the longevity of their poorly trained units in large battles and if they did die it was easy to clean and reuse. These pics are of skillful fantasy adventurers not soldiers and you don't need plate to protect against splinters and that's reality bro.
First of all, street fighting does not equal combat experience. Second, heavy armor was never used on the mass soldiers - it was an exclusive thing because of expense (I think US Navy SEALs are highly-trained units, and they don't go to war in swim trunks). Third (and very importantly), it's extremely presumptuous for you to assume who does, and does not, have combat experience.
I did not say full plate was required; I said covering. There's a reason armor development went the way that it did and loincloths were not the only protection warriors/soldiers used. Rough terrain, for instance, requires protection that has nothing to do with weaponry. It's the same reason ladies don't climb Yosemite in a boa and g-string combo - their knees would be shredded, as would arms and other soft body parts. Hunters don't go out in speedos, either, for the same reasons.
There are examples of small-scale conflict, where combatants were not (or very lightly) armored, but they are not the norm. Even the samurai, who were far from poorly trained units, wore protection. More to the point, unarmored units wore (and continue to wear) clothing from head to toe.
Even though these armors look provocative they are still functional they restrict breast movement and protect sensitive areas. I have been a martial artist for more than 16 years and am both a competitive and street fighter. I have personally fought two men with knifes and won without injury I would prefer to wear nothing as even cotton can impair movement. Anyone that has any combat experience will tell you if your strategy is to take damage it isn't a good one. Heavy armors were used because it would increase the longevity of their poorly trained units in large battles and if they did die it was easy to clean and reuse. These pics are of skillful fantasy adventurers not soldiers and you don't need plate to protect against splinters and that's reality bro.
First, the picture you posted is not protecting sensitive areas, or at least not any area vital to living. Protecting your shoulders is great, as a wounded shoulder hinders arm movement, but what about this guy's kidneys, lungs, heart, and intestines? They're all exposed. Also, while you don't need plate to protect from a splinter, it helps to be wearing clothes. There's also weather concerns. Rain and snow become a lot more deadly in a bikini.
Second, fighting somebody with a knife with your bare hands is definitely impressive, but you're still largely not disadvantaged when it comes to reach. In fantasy combat, on the other hand, you're going up against spears, halberds, greatswords, longswords and creatures whose arms are as long as your entire body and possibly also using a weapon sized for their race on top of that.
Further, the strategy is not "to take damage." The strategy is to laugh off most any hit that makes it past your sword or shield. Virtually nothing short of a morningstar, longbow, or lance is going to get through plate mail and touch your precious organs underneath. Even with those, if any of their momentum was sapped by the rounded edges of one's armor, you might be okay. Also, as @reedmilfam said, the price of plate mail was exorbitant and most soldiers had to buy their own gear.
oh just a side note, fighting people with knives bare handed is very impressive, its also incredibly stupid!! so you won without taking an injury, -this time- what if someone had a hidden blade? your unprotected body wouldn't do much against that.... and that's how i would fight, if i lived in a dangerous area i'd have knives on the inside of my sleeves for a quick slash to the face of anyone who tried attacking me, call me a coward but im not going to fight fair if my life is on the line screw that! and medieval armies would often use full plate as shock troops to take a point, or to take a cavalry charge, ive not worn full plate myself but i would except with the right footing it would be nearly impossible to knock someone in fullplate down save war elephant or swinging a tree at them. the only way i could see it is if you got behind and slashed behind the knees, but that involves getting close
While it may have been expensive just like today governments supplied there men with gear; you couldn't apply the Testudo formation without shields. Right the man in the picture I posted is not covered but since he is light he can easily move out of the way or strike unhampered.
While it may have been expensive just like today governments supplied there men with gear; you couldn't apply the Testudo formation without shields. Right the man in the picture I posted is not covered but since he is light he can easily move out of the way or strike unhampered.
You can't be serious. That's artwork, and is just as silly as today's art for the same reasons, it doesn't portray any practical combat or travel wear. You're right that some nations in other time periods supplied their men, but in the case of Rome it was a breast plate and a helmet, not a full suit of full plate, which had not yet been invented. The Spartans provided their warriors with equipment, I believe, but those were hardened leather and thus infinitely cheaper than metal armor. They also WORE CLOTHES.
We're talking about time periods and cultures analogous to most fantasy settings, like the European Dark Ages or feudal-era Japan.
correct me if im wrong but i believe the first platemail armors were "founded" in either the germanic countries (Teutonic era) or England,
before that it was mainly leather or in the celts point of view most wore clothes. (but that was because the country was poor under english rule) but anyway! even back then people protected themselves be it with shields, padded cloth, leather, chainmail, platemail. it was smart then its smart now.
but i said this before and ill say it again, can we move this discussion to another topic and keep this thread on topic of funny pictures of a nakedish woman trying to lift a sword that probably weighs more than russia. or perhaps you'd like to post images of cool fantasy art that has some realism involved, this topic isnt to insult anyone, its not to talk / argue about whats right and wrong about the art, its not about sexism its just "hey this woman's armour is made entirely out of spikes and lace....kinda uncomfy!"
I am more or less in favour of the 'armour is good' assertions made by those before me. Some famous warriors like the Picts, Celts and Germanic barbarians were known to fight with little armour, or even naked, but that was typically due to a lack of resources and technology to mass-produce armour, and not by choice. For example when the Roman Empire incorporated many of the Germanic tribes into its legions, the German mercenaries were given Roman equipment and trained to fight in the Roman style.
In the Medieval era, although high quality full-plate armour was pretty prohibitively expensive for the common soldier (also the technology didn't exist until late 1300s or 1400s), chain-mail vests were pretty much ubiquitous on European battlefields. Basically, until guns came along and changed the game, European armies tried to protect their armies as much as possible with armour, within technologic and economic constraints.
If there is a downside to armour, it comes primarily from the strategic costs. The economic cost of equipping large numbers of men in heavy armour is well-known, but there are also a number of other constraints:
1) A heavily armoured rider requires very strong and fit horses to function effectively. Such high quality horses are always in demand and likely cost even more than the armour.
2) Although heavy armour might not inhibit movement as much as conventionally thought in battle, it certainly does result in fatigue much faster, and severely slows down the speed and endurance of heavily armoured soldiers. That's why when a battle is lost, soldiers often throw away their armour and weapons so they can escape as fast as possible.
3) This means that a heavily armoured army is often strategically much less flexible compared to a lighter one. Just consider the two extremes.
A) An European army full of knights and men-at-arms decked in plate-mail and chain-mail vests. Perhaps 20% of the army is on horseback, and the rest fight as archers, crossbowmen, pikemen etc... The army pretty much has to stick to roads because the army's rations, ammo and other supplies comes in a follower's camp, complete with church clergy, blacksmiths, fletchers and merchants. It's basically a slow-moving mobile city, and that's partly because the soldiers are so weighed down in armour, they can't really carry much else.
A Mongol tumen. Each nomad warrior rides a small but tough steppe pony, renowned not for speed or strength, but incredible stamina. Each man has 2-4 extra ponies so he will always have a fresh steed, and during a campaign he can survives on horse milk and blood. Most of the warriors wear no armour at all, though they do use silk vests that surprisingly minimises the damage of arrow wounds.
If the Mongol tumen and the European army clashed head on like in Lord of Rings. The Mongols would be annihilated... They don't pack the punch of a European heavy horseman, and they won't be able to break solid heavy infantry lines with a light cavalry charge.
However the Mongols could literally ride rings around the European army, constantly harassing with raiding attacks and simply refuse to engage in a decisive battle until the latter was exhausted, running low on supplies, demoralised and disorganised.
In general, Eastern military strategy was more heavily influenced by nomadic pressures, and thus there was a greater emphasis at a strategic level on mobility and flexibility over brute strength and protection. Thus although the Persians were renowned for deploying heavy cataphracts, (so clearly they had the technology and resources) as elite shock cavalry, the bulk of their army was lightly armed and armoured in comparison to Greeks, Romans and later Europeans.
Breast plate: Polibius (book 6, 23) tells us all foot soldiers wore a square breast plate of approximately 25cm in width Chain mail (Lorica Hamata) : All soldiers who could afford one would likely wear chain mail rather than the breast plate to protect the upper body, this was both resistant, relatively light and (very importantly) didin’t impede agility and movement during hand-to-hand combat. The more well-known Roman armour is the one made of horizontal strips of metal joined by leather straps/metal rings: It was known as the "Lorica Segmentata" and was in regular use during the height of the Roman empire but lasted a relatively short period of time and replaced again by chain mail. The final years of the roman empire saw a more frequent use of the "Lorica Squamata" ie with metal plates rather like scales on a fish.
There is far too much evil afoot I have met my match and believe it is time to nap.
“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance” - Socrates
Breast plate: Polibius (book 6, 23) tells us all foot soldiers wore a square breast plate of approximately 25cm in width Chain mail (Lorica Hamata) : All soldiers who could afford one would likely wear chain mail rather than the breast plate to protect the upper body, this was both resistant, relatively light and (very importantly) didin’t impede agility and movement during hand-to-hand combat. The more well-known Roman armour is the one made of horizontal strips of metal joined by leather straps/metal rings: It was known as the "Lorica Segmentata" and was in regular use during the height of the Roman empire but lasted a relatively short period of time and replaced again by chain mail. The final years of the roman empire saw a more frequent use of the "Lorica Squamata" ie with metal plates rather like scales on a fish.
There is far too much evil afoot I have met my match and believe it is time to nap.
“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance” - Socrates
None of that refutes anything @reedmilfam and I have said. When I said "breastplate" I meant lorica segmenta, as that's simply what I've always called it, because that's what breastplate looks like in the 3E PHB. So, thanks for imparting that knowledge. Like I said, however, it isn't refutation. That is all armor, worn by soldiers, that was considered essential to keeping even the most skilled warriors alive. With Roman veterans arguably being among the most well-trained warriors in all of history, I think I will trust their judgement in choosing to wear breastplate or chain as opposed to being naked.
Okay. I just found a lovely "male armored in the same way women are" pic:
by randolfo Okay, yeah, he's an ice elf, but just straps? Really? Dude may be blue from COLD. by ArtofTy Ridiculous outfit, even if you are a mage. by Artgerm It might be leather, but why is it modeled on LINGERIE?! by JamieTyndall Sigh… female version of Wolverine who canonically is slightly build and boobed turned into eye candy. Le sigh. Wish I could say this was unexpected. After seeing so many of these pictures, my face starts to look like this: by atomic circus
Comments
for more amazing and completely unexpected discoveries, tune in tonight, at 12!
I think the armor types are more to do with combat style than objectifying females. Females most often have more speed, dexterity, and are limber so there armors are light so that these attributes are not restrained. As far as sexy goes it is a tool in it self and many armors are made to enhance their ability to charm dumb brutes. I and most other men are brutes our natural strength while fit for many skills limits our perception; Direct and to the point we most often rely on Intelligence rather than wisdom.
What point? This entire thread is 11 pages of aimless kvetching.
The type of content you're all rabidly foaming over is purposefully created to appeal to a certain demographic (15-30yo males); it's *designed* to titillate. Bitching about it is like crying over the calorie count in chocolate chip cookies. We all know it's bad, but it's there for a reason, and there are certain segments of the population who it's marketed toward and who end up consuming it.
Ranting about half-naked chicks in fantasy is the equivalent of whining about the decibel level at a Nascar rally; in both cases, it's beyond useless. I swear, it's like you people are 11 years old, and just discovered the internet or something.
Sex sells. Deal with it.
These sorts of portrayals of women, especially when they represent a majority, are part of why sci-fi and fantasy (barring a few canon instances like Tolkien or Verne) have virtually no credibility in literary criticism. Comic books are having the same problem, and if any critical analysis does touch on comic books, they usually do so with the male characters only because the majority of the female characters are being posed ridiculously and just there to be hawt babes, unless a particular female character really fits the thesis, like Power Girl and her various explanations for the boob window over the years. As an English major, I'd be pretty stoked if I could talk about Dresden Files or Baldur's Gate (or insert fantasy franchise of your choice) in papers more often, but sadly that's just not possible with 90% of professors.
here's a really cool one! (dont know who made it but it was on google so, credit to whoever did it)
i only need paint to protect me!!!! (Guul draz vampire, Steve Argyle)
These are as nimble as they can be. Notice that they're not in g-strings with bare buttocks and midriffs?
Flat chest (so you don't direct points of weapons between the bulbous bits), covered arms, etc. This was made to actually protect the wearer, while allowing her mobility. When you actually get hurt by the perils of the battlefield, you protect against what can happen there. Unless the combat is drunken mud-wrestling, beachwear doesn't cut it.
I did not say full plate was required; I said covering. There's a reason armor development went the way that it did and loincloths were not the only protection warriors/soldiers used. Rough terrain, for instance, requires protection that has nothing to do with weaponry. It's the same reason ladies don't climb Yosemite in a boa and g-string combo - their knees would be shredded, as would arms and other soft body parts. Hunters don't go out in speedos, either, for the same reasons.
There are examples of small-scale conflict, where combatants were not (or very lightly) armored, but they are not the norm. Even the samurai, who were far from poorly trained units, wore protection. More to the point, unarmored units wore (and continue to wear) clothing from head to toe.
This was linked before and is germane to the topic: http://www.tor.com/blogs/2013/05/boob-plate-armor-would-kill-you
Second, fighting somebody with a knife with your bare hands is definitely impressive, but you're still largely not disadvantaged when it comes to reach. In fantasy combat, on the other hand, you're going up against spears, halberds, greatswords, longswords and creatures whose arms are as long as your entire body and possibly also using a weapon sized for their race on top of that.
Further, the strategy is not "to take damage." The strategy is to laugh off most any hit that makes it past your sword or shield. Virtually nothing short of a morningstar, longbow, or lance is going to get through plate mail and touch your precious organs underneath. Even with those, if any of their momentum was sapped by the rounded edges of one's armor, you might be okay. Also, as @reedmilfam said, the price of plate mail was exorbitant and most soldiers had to buy their own gear.
We're talking about time periods and cultures analogous to most fantasy settings, like the European Dark Ages or feudal-era Japan.
before that it was mainly leather or in the celts point of view most wore clothes. (but that was because the country was poor under english rule) but anyway! even back then people protected themselves be it with shields, padded cloth, leather, chainmail, platemail. it was smart then its smart now.
but i said this before and ill say it again, can we move this discussion to another topic and keep this thread on topic of funny pictures of a nakedish woman trying to lift a sword that probably weighs more than russia. or perhaps you'd like to post images of cool fantasy art that has some realism involved, this topic isnt to insult anyone, its not to talk / argue about whats right and wrong about the art, its not about sexism its just "hey this woman's armour is made entirely out of spikes and lace....kinda uncomfy!"
I am more or less in favour of the 'armour is good' assertions made by those before me. Some famous warriors like the Picts, Celts and Germanic barbarians were known to fight with little armour, or even naked, but that was typically due to a lack of resources and technology to mass-produce armour, and not by choice. For example when the Roman Empire incorporated many of the Germanic tribes into its legions, the German mercenaries were given Roman equipment and trained to fight in the Roman style.
In the Medieval era, although high quality full-plate armour was pretty prohibitively expensive for the common soldier (also the technology didn't exist until late 1300s or 1400s), chain-mail vests were pretty much ubiquitous on European battlefields. Basically, until guns came along and changed the game, European armies tried to protect their armies as much as possible with armour, within technologic and economic constraints.
If there is a downside to armour, it comes primarily from the strategic costs. The economic cost of equipping large numbers of men in heavy armour is well-known, but there are also a number of other constraints:
1) A heavily armoured rider requires very strong and fit horses to function effectively. Such high quality horses are always in demand and likely cost even more than the armour.
2) Although heavy armour might not inhibit movement as much as conventionally thought in battle, it certainly does result in fatigue much faster, and severely slows down the speed and endurance of heavily armoured soldiers. That's why when a battle is lost, soldiers often throw away their armour and weapons so they can escape as fast as possible.
3) This means that a heavily armoured army is often strategically much less flexible compared to a lighter one. Just consider the two extremes.
A) An European army full of knights and men-at-arms decked in plate-mail and chain-mail vests. Perhaps 20% of the army is on horseback, and the rest fight as archers, crossbowmen, pikemen etc... The army pretty much has to stick to roads because the army's rations, ammo and other supplies comes in a follower's camp, complete with church clergy, blacksmiths, fletchers and merchants. It's basically a slow-moving mobile city, and that's partly because the soldiers are so weighed down in armour, they can't really carry much else.
If the Mongol tumen and the European army clashed head on like in Lord of Rings. The Mongols would be annihilated... They don't pack the punch of a European heavy horseman, and they won't be able to break solid heavy infantry lines with a light cavalry charge.
However the Mongols could literally ride rings around the European army, constantly harassing with raiding attacks and simply refuse to engage in a decisive battle until the latter was exhausted, running low on supplies, demoralised and disorganised.
In general, Eastern military strategy was more heavily influenced by nomadic pressures, and thus there was a greater emphasis at a strategic level on mobility and flexibility over brute strength and protection. Thus although the Persians were renowned for deploying heavy cataphracts, (so clearly they had the technology and resources) as elite shock cavalry, the bulk of their army was lightly armed and armoured in comparison to Greeks, Romans and later Europeans.
Chain mail (Lorica Hamata) : All soldiers who could afford one would likely wear chain mail rather than the breast plate to protect the upper body, this was both resistant, relatively light and (very importantly) didin’t impede agility and movement during hand-to-hand combat.
The more well-known Roman armour is the one made of horizontal strips of metal joined by leather straps/metal rings: It was known as the "Lorica Segmentata" and was in regular use during the height of the Roman empire but lasted a relatively short period of time and replaced again by chain mail.
The final years of the roman empire saw a more frequent use of the "Lorica Squamata" ie with metal plates rather like scales on a fish.
There is far too much evil afoot I have met my match and believe it is time to nap.
“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance” - Socrates
After seeing so many of these pictures, my face starts to look like this:
That being said, ice shatters quite easily if it is penetrated by, say, a sword or mace... I don't even think full armor could save him.