Ok, I think we can stop discussing the OP's language, real intentions and the like. The thread is here and it has been funny so far in terms of pictures.
@wubble I'm not sure which thread you are referring too. My thread has ... well ... non sexualised female armor, and @LadyRhian's thread Unrealistic Fantasy Art has daft armor on both men and women.
@Squire, @Heindrich and @Kamigoroshi I'm glad to see that it isn't only the posing pouch, and gratuitous bare 6-pack and man-boobs armor that's getting featured here. The "way too heavy, way too big and way too spikey male armor" is just as silly.
@Squire I thought that they had found leather and ring mail in archeological digs. The leather is of course long since gone, but the way the rings were lying and the fact they weren't joined like chain indicated they were looped onto another garment - hence ring mail. I am casting back to the eighties for this, and I've long since lost the book I had on real armor, so I could be wrong. I am sure that horns on helmets is a mistake made from looking at tapestries and other art showing warriors with their ear protecting bits hooked up onto the helmet (so they could hear better!). Horns on a helmet in a battle is a very, very, very bad idea. Helmets are supposed to make weapons slide off the head - deceasing the damge by deflecting blows. Thats why they are smooth, and have the angles and curves they do. Horns not only wreck this function, they provide extra leverage for the weapon to put huge stress on the neck, and break the cervical spine.
Heres a pic from Kevin Yin that combines the three sins of 1. Gratuitously bared skin over very vital and vulnerable portions of anatomy 2. Bits of armor that appear to defy gravity, and are held up by superglue and/or mind over matter. 3. Ridiclously large shoulder protection, and totally weird neck protection. A shame - because tha rtwork is truly beautiful
@kiwidoc hmm, I could be wrong about ringmail, then. I've never heard of such an armour - I was always under the impression that mail (i.e. "chainmail") was used from the Roman period right up to late medieval. It was certainly used by the Romans, Celts, Saxons, and Northmen. Maybe this "ringmail" did exist elsewhere in the world, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't used in Europe. I've certainly never seen anything like it outside of fantasy RPGs.
As for horns...yeah, bad idea, although it's worth pointing out that some illustrations of Teutonic knights show them wearing quite big crests.
Ringmail is not a thing. That's the general consensus anyway. I'm not saying it couldn't have happened, but there would be no reason for it to happen. If you already have rings you can just as easily link them together as you can sew them on, with how much thread you would need to use to keep them on and useful in battle, which would make a much stronger armor anyway.
Ringmail is not a thing. That's the general consensus anyway. I'm not saying it couldn't have happened, but there would be no reason for it to happen. If you already have rings you can just as easily link them together as you can sew them on, with how much thread you would need to use to keep them on and useful in battle, which would make a much stronger armor anyway.
Several experts on medieval armor and weaponry said the same thing during one of their panels over the weekend. I trust them. >.>;;
I agree about the ringmail thing - as I said I am trying to remember something I read 30 years ago, and I have long since had to give away the book. I've always thought ringmail in fantasy should be for someone like Oberon in Game of Thrones - a character who needs more flexibility than you get with boiled leather, and who lives in a hot environment so needs his armor to be as cool and light as possible. I also have always mentally pictured the rings attached to the soft leather tunic with leather straps woven through the gaps, rather than actual thread.
Anyway here's another picture. If I tried to list the thins wrong with this armor this post would be several pages long! And I don't mean all the extra legs.
Normally they were, but a lot of illustrations of Teutonic knights that I've seen show them wearing similar decorations in battle. I've heard somewhere that it was only the officers who wore those so that they could be easily identified on the field.
Also, they are modern illustrations (I can't find any actual historical depictions of the Teutonic knights), so they could be mistaken about that too.
Considering it's unlikely that the illustrators had seen the battle they were depicting, or maybe even any battle at all... It might be reasonable to assume tournaments might have been their main point of reference for how knights/Teutonic knights looked.
That's from Bedknobs and Broomsticks. That film was a very big part of my childhood...that scene where the 15th century harnesses start to slowly come to life always got me all teary-eyed!
Though that actually reminds me...practicality wasn't always the top priority when it came to military outfits. If you look at the outfits worn by the British foot regiments during the Napoleonic (and yes, the American Independence! :P ) wars, they're not exactly practical - not the colours (since camouflage is a modern thing and wasn't necessary in big open field battles with line infantry) but the cut of the uniforms...frock coats and tight breeches, powdered wigs and tri-corner hats that look like they belong in a parade, and those heeled shoes and white socks don't look very sturdy! Those tall grenadier hats don't look very utilitarian either, and I'm guessing there's a reason jackboots went out of fashion (shame, really, as they look awesome!). So with that in mind, I can kind of see how sometimes one might sacrifice a bit of practicality for the "Omg wow!" effect. Of course, there are limits...
Curse the mysterious power that made me look into this topic...
While I'm here, does that counts as unrealistic (it surely isn't sexualized):
I've done this mooooonths ago, and it was my first try of drawing armor. I never get any sensible feedback from this thought. So, how realistic/unrealistic this thing is? (I might regret putting that there).
Those tall grenadier hats don't look very utilitarian either
Grenadier hats were made so that you could move your arm past your head without hitting your hat and distracting you from your throw, no idea why they had to be so tall though.
That would certainly explain why Mancester United (and before that, Liverpool) are one of the top teams in the premier league! (and nothing to do with the fact that they spend a crap-ton of money on buying the best players from all four corners of the globe... )
That would certainly explain why Mancester United (and before that, Liverpool) are one of the top teams in the premier league! (and nothing to do with the fact that they spend a crap-ton of money on buying the best players from all four corners of the globe... )
That's from Bedknobs and Broomsticks. That film was a very big part of my childhood...that scene where the 15th century harnesses start to slowly come to life always got me all teary-eyed!
Though that actually reminds me...practicality wasn't always the top priority when it came to military outfits. If you look at the outfits worn by the British foot regiments during the Napoleonic (and yes, the American Independence! :P ) wars, they're not exactly practical - not the colours (since camouflage is a modern thing and wasn't necessary in big open field battles with line infantry) but the cut of the uniforms...frock coats and tight breeches, powdered wigs and tri-corner hats that look like they belong in a parade, and those heeled shoes and white socks don't look very sturdy! Those tall grenadier hats don't look very utilitarian either, and I'm guessing there's a reason jackboots went out of fashion (shame, really, as they look awesome!). So with that in mind, I can kind of see how sometimes one might sacrifice a bit of practicality for the "Omg wow!" effect. Of course, there are limits...
sorry if necroing, no date and a valid comment
That uniform style was not practical because at that time, it did not need to be. War was very structured and just covered head to toe in rules. That is why we did so well for ourselves (all things considered) we learned to fight dirty from the native americans, and the brits were not ready for our "barbaric" way of fighting. Though here is my question to the history buffs, did all forces in the British military of that era wear that gear or was that a more ceremonial unit represented in that movie?
btw, can I give 90 likes for something? Bedknobs and Broomsticks was and still is one of my favorite movies of all time!!!!
Everybody knows that the average male hero is so unrealistically muscled that nothing short of supersonic ammunition would have any hope of penetrating anyway
Everybody knows that the average male hero is so unrealistically muscled that nothing short of supersonic ammunition would have any hope of penetrating anyway
Yes, but he must be. How else would he be able to carry all those… well endowed… damsel in distresses to safety? A less muscled male would simple topple over.
Comments
So, pics, not words
Somehow patrick isn't quite as imposing
@Squire, @Heindrich and @Kamigoroshi I'm glad to see that it isn't only the posing pouch, and gratuitous bare 6-pack and man-boobs armor that's getting featured here. The "way too heavy, way too big and way too spikey male armor" is just as silly.
@Squire I thought that they had found leather and ring mail in archeological digs. The leather is of course long since gone, but the way the rings were lying and the fact they weren't joined like chain indicated they were looped onto another garment - hence ring mail. I am casting back to the eighties for this, and I've long since lost the book I had on real armor, so I could be wrong.
I am sure that horns on helmets is a mistake made from looking at tapestries and other art showing warriors with their ear protecting bits hooked up onto the helmet (so they could hear better!). Horns on a helmet in a battle is a very, very, very bad idea. Helmets are supposed to make weapons slide off the head - deceasing the damge by deflecting blows. Thats why they are smooth, and have the angles and curves they do. Horns not only wreck this function, they provide extra leverage for the weapon to put huge stress on the neck, and break the cervical spine.
Heres a pic from Kevin Yin that combines the three sins of
1. Gratuitously bared skin over very vital and vulnerable portions of anatomy
2. Bits of armor that appear to defy gravity, and are held up by superglue and/or mind over matter.
3. Ridiclously large shoulder protection, and totally weird neck protection.
A shame - because tha rtwork is truly beautiful
As for horns...yeah, bad idea, although it's worth pointing out that some illustrations of Teutonic knights show them wearing quite big crests.
Also, I just found this monstrosity:
I've always thought ringmail in fantasy should be for someone like Oberon in Game of Thrones - a character who needs more flexibility than you get with boiled leather, and who lives in a hot environment so needs his armor to be as cool and light as possible. I also have always mentally pictured the rings attached to the soft leather tunic with leather straps woven through the gaps, rather than actual thread.
Anyway here's another picture. If I tried to list the thins wrong with this armor this post would be several pages long! And I don't mean all the extra legs.
Art by Bruno Biazotto
Also, they are modern illustrations (I can't find any actual historical depictions of the Teutonic knights), so they could be mistaken about that too.
Though that actually reminds me...practicality wasn't always the top priority when it came to military outfits. If you look at the outfits worn by the British foot regiments during the Napoleonic (and yes, the American Independence! :P ) wars, they're not exactly practical - not the colours (since camouflage is a modern thing and wasn't necessary in big open field battles with line infantry) but the cut of the uniforms...frock coats and tight breeches, powdered wigs and tri-corner hats that look like they belong in a parade, and those heeled shoes and white socks don't look very sturdy! Those tall grenadier hats don't look very utilitarian either, and I'm guessing there's a reason jackboots went out of fashion (shame, really, as they look awesome!). So with that in mind, I can kind of see how sometimes one might sacrifice a bit of practicality for the "Omg wow!" effect. Of course, there are limits...
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/05/0518_050518_redsports.html
While I'm here, does that counts as unrealistic (it surely isn't sexualized):
I've done this mooooonths ago, and it was my first try of drawing armor. I never get any sensible feedback from this thought. So, how realistic/unrealistic this thing is? (I might regret putting that there).
The various padding makes it look "home-made armor". With the eye shadow it looks like something Gene Simmons would make as a concert costume
That uniform style was not practical because at that time, it did not need to be. War was very structured and just covered head to toe in rules. That is why we did so well for ourselves (all things considered) we learned to fight dirty from the native americans, and the brits were not ready for our "barbaric" way of fighting. Though here is my question to the history buffs, did all forces in the British military of that era wear that gear or was that a more ceremonial unit represented in that movie?
btw, can I give 90 likes for something? Bedknobs and Broomsticks was and still is one of my favorite movies of all time!!!!