Female armor: Fantasy vs Reality

This episode of Shadiversity is
brought to you and sponsored by ‘Campfire’. Not ‘A campfire’, that would be silly.
‘Campfire’ is a really sophisticated writing tool. If you’re a writer like
me and love to delve into sci-fi and fantasy and things, you’ll know that it
can be really tricky to keep track of characters, place names and also timeline of events, especially when these things, like characters, start to number
in the hundreds. Seriously, I’ve actually made Word
documents trying to keep track of timeline of events of my novel, but campfire
actually offers this tool in a much better version for you, that’s fully
integrated with character bios and also world building. You can add hundreds
of character bios to a specific story that you’ve made with detailed
information, such as relationships, personality traits, of course name and
age and such, and also custom panels for anything specific that might be unique
to that character. You can use the powerful timeline tool to add specific
scenes and plot events to keep track of what is happening and when. It uses a
straightforward drag-and-drop system so you can easily reorganize the structure the story as needed as you develop it further. Campfire also has a fully
featured world building tool where you can add any number of maps to this tool,
add pins for each location and flesh out all the details like the backstory, the
history, the culture and such. So basically campfire is a wonderful
organization tool for writers like me, so you can organize all the characters, all
the plot lines and the storyline that you have, and also the
really detailed world building that usually goes into stories like this. So go check them out, there is a link in the description below. Greetings, I’m Shad. And I want to talk to you a little bit about female
armor, which is an interesting kind of thought or idea because historically
there wasn’t really such a thing as ‘female armor’ in that sense.
Armor was just armor and if a female wanted to wear armor, they would wear
normal armor. Why? I’ll get to that in a second, because there is a kind of realm
in which female armor is very specific and prominent, as opposed to male armor. It’s not in history, it’s in fantasy. So why is that? Why is female armor so
defined now? I actually should kind of point out what type of female I’m
talking about here, because there is the ‘female armor’ that’s always the bikini
and stuff like that. If you’re interested I’ve made a whole video addressing the
‘barbarian bikini armor’ kind of trope to find out if it could actually be
feasible and realistic. So that’s a whole video onto itself. I don’t want to talk
about bikini armor, I want to talk about say full plate armor that is made to
emphasize and kind of shape to the female form. One of the ways that you’ll
see this depicted in fantasy artwork and stuff like that is of course there is a
prominent kind of bulge around their bust to emphasize the female form. And some of these designs don’t seem too implausible or impractical, in fact they
kind of seem realistic. So if they are realistic, why didn’t they exist in
medieval times in actual history? And why would we even want armor shaped to a
type of form to emphasize a visual image or look in the first place? Good
questions. Let’s dive into it. I’ll address the latter question first. The
first thing we need to understand that armor was actually made to a very
specific type of aesthetic. We have to understand that this is very different
to our modern sense of fashion. There are many cultures in the world that
have a very different aesthetic or an idea of what looks interesting or
appealing, and when we actually combine the two – cultural differences and
differences between the past and present – we see some pretty darn big variations.
Look at China in the past where it was seen women
very little feet was very very attractive and appealing; we see certain
African tribes where if they stretch out their bottom lips or years – that’s a turn
all right; and also in European cultures we see certain periods in history – it
wasn’t universal throughout every time in medieval history and Renaissance
and other things like changing cultures, but women that had a bit more
plump were seen as more attractive. And in regards to what
they found as certain things attractive in men? Well, there is a thing called the
codpiece. So, comparing the past is also like comparing vastly different cultures
in regards to aesthetics and also just what they found appealing. They also had
a vastly different perspective on what was proper and improper. In the modern
day we would find something like the codpiece to be not only
ridiculous and unattractive, it is like weird and strange, like ‘What?!’ But in that
time it was seen as a very manly kind of thing to have a bulge in that area, and
some of those bulges were rather extreme. There is another aesthetic kind of
feature that was seen as particularly attractive in men in the past that
applies very directly to armor. But just before we hop off of that
codpiece thing, it shouldn’t surprise us that these aesthetic influences were
actually applied to armor as well. Look at Henry the eighth’s armor, and what you
see there? A big old… A big old honking codpiece paid out of
metal made into his armor itself. So they actually incorporated their
aesthetic preferences to armor. So the idea that we have in fantasy, where
fantasy designs are made to look aesthetically appealing, is not foreign
or unrealistic. We did it in history, but we did it with a very different
aesthetic in mind. It was the medieval as setting. This is
the historical setting! Now, if you want more information on this idea of the
medieval aesthetic as opposed to our modern sensibilities and ideas of what
looks attractive and stuff like that, Ian LaSpina from the YouTube channel
‘Knyght Errant’ has made a full video on this very subject. It is so good, so
informative! So I really would just go check it out. There’s a card there and a
link in the description below. Medieval aesthetic – really good! And one of the other aesthetics that people really appreciated, and this was kind of seen as
a manly thing, were really thin waists. Having a very tight thin waist was seen
as attractive and manly. And so what do we see in armor design? Very very thin
waists in some circumstances. Because we have to remember, once again, the medieval period wasn’t a homogeneous hole. There were different cultures and things
changed between time periods, because the medieval period was a long period in time,
funnily enough. What I find interesting in fantasy, and this isn’t a criticism –
it’s something I actually like and appreciate – it’s that fantasy doesn’t
have to be restricted completely to what we did in history. Even if they base
it in a medieval setting, because it’s fantasy we can take some liberties. I
tend to criticize those liberties that are taken outside the realm of
practicality, realism and believability – let’s keep it at least functional;
but if we keep it functional there are certain liberties we can take. For
instance applying a modern aesthetic to our fantasy medieval designs. And this is
often done quite a lot. Have a look at the male armor. You won’t
actually find historical armor in this shape, but could you make armor in this
shape? Yes! Yes, you can. What are the differences? Well, it’s done and designed
to a modern aesthetic. And so what is the modern aesthetic for manliness and strength and power? It’s usually broad shoulders, a fairly solid
chest. It has a bit of a silhouette thin waist, but not nearly the wasp thin
waist of medieval times and their aesthetic. But this is our aesthetic, and
honestly, because we appreciate and understand this cultural appeal, that
looks pretty impressive and cool! And so when we apply this same standard
to female armor, again I think it’s actually not too unrealistic. But if the
medieval people’s had such established and understood aesthetic styles, why
wasn’t that applied to female armor of the medieval period? Well, there’s a very
simple and basic answer to it. Barely any females wore armor in the
medieval period. No, there are certainly cases when they
did, I mean everyone will point to Joan of Arc and other things like that, but we
have to understand that these are the rare exceptions to the norm. The standard
was that women didn’t fight. This wasn’t men saying you couldn’t fight, it’s the
fact. In reality most women, when given the choice, would choose not to fight. And
an actual fact – most men, when given the choice, would probably choose not to
fight unless there’s a cultural kind of emphasis on protection and also courage
and manliness and stuff like that, which I actually feel is a good thing, because
you want the people who are most well-equipped to protect society. To
protect society – and men, on average being stronger than women –
those are the ones that you want in the battlefield. So developing a culture
around men needing to be brave and courageous and protecting those weaker
to them is a positive thing and beneficial for society as a whole. And I
also feel there are certain biological instincts like men being very naturally
competitive and aggressive that help men out protecting others and stuff
like that when channeled in a positive good direction. So this should not
surprise us in any measure that men for the larger majority of history were the
ones who were wearing armor and fighting, and because of that armor was shaped to
fit their actual physical form and emphasize the forms that people in the
past found to be attractive, impressive. The interesting thing about this is that
armor by its design actually can fit the standard female form just as easily as
the standard male form. And remember, it’s because I said ‘by its design’.
For instance, there’s actually a cavity on armor. If you look on a breastplate, the plate does not sit flat on your
chest, it actually sits above and there’s a bit of a dome. And oftentimes
medieval design had an emphasis on what they found attractive. The dome was actually
lower around their body. It didn’t make them look fat because it was followed by
a very thin waist, but that dome was usually lower. And the reason why it was
domed is that there’s greater chance for a weapon, when it strikes, to deflect off a rounded smooth surface, than if it was just flat there. But this doming on
the chest and the dome does raise up. There is a bit more of an emphasis,
usually on low, but it is also domed and there’s space between the actual
breastplate itself and your chest. There’s enough room in there for a
woman’s bust to fit in quite easily, and so it doesn’t actually need to be made
different to accommodate for female anatomy as opposed to male anatomy. Also,
on average, women tend to have more rounded hips and the pelvis area than
men, but that’s the same thing with armor. If you have a look at the armor where
the fold comes out from where the breastplate matches, it’s actually got
room between the edge of the fold and your hips. This is actually put in the
armor so you can maneuver it around and actually bend around your waist, so there
needs to be room in between which actually accommodates for anyone with
larger hips than the average man. So the reasons being the fact that armor
actually is made to be able to accommodate for the female form, and the fact that so
few females actually wore armor – we do not see historical armor that’s made
specifically to emphasize and also present the female form as opposed to
the male form. But… A but here. If there was a situation in history where a
large majority of females actually ended up fighting to the point where their
armor was starting to be made specifically for them, I feel there is easily
precedent in history to point out that armor was made to emphasize physical
appearance. And in our historical case it was physical male appearance, but that’s
a precedent in my mind, and so if armor was being made for women and cultures were
different historically, I actually feel armor would have been made to emphasize
female appearance for females wearing it. It would still be fully practical and
functional but it would be made with very specific intent. And what would be
some of the differences? Well, I think the bulge that you generally see on the
armor instead of being a bit lower would be a bit higher to emphasize the bust. Maybe that wasp-thin waist probably would
still be kept the same. The hips would probably be kept the same. Really the
only difference that I think you’d be able to point out very specifically is the
emphasis on the chest area. Most of the other armor segments don’t need
to be changed at all. With our modern sensibilities we don’t really associate
a wasp thin waist with something that we see as a manly physical shape, and the
funny thing is we actually more associate that with female appearance – having a really thin waist, but that’s already there in medieval
historical armor. But if we wanted to take that to a fantasy setting where we
only wanted to impose a modern aesthetic to the appearance and design of the
armor, we wouldn’t actually see such wasp thin waist like we see in medieval
armor; we would actually see a bit broader, certainly larger – basically
what we see in medieval fantasy artwork. And the realistic female armor designs
are perfectly fine in my opinion – talking about fantasy specifically. If you’re
setting your world in a medieval setting, you need to understand:
custom-made female armor that emphasizes a female form – to my understanding, I
haven’t seen any examples of this, didn’t exist historically at all. But in fantasy –
all power to you: there’s precedent, there’s logic to it, and it also looks
really cool! So awesome! So there we go. This has been a detailed look, looking at
female armor, comparing the historical precedent, and also what we can do in
fantasy. So thank you very much for watching, I hope you have enjoyed, and if
you’re wanting to hear more of my thoughts on specifically female armor,
for instance can bikini armor, be realistic in fantasy and stuch (stuff+such=stuch), do go
check out that video. I hope to see you there, and until that time, farewell.

100 thoughts on “Female armor: Fantasy vs Reality

  1. Another reason for the "wasp thin waist" was for the distribution of weight. Instead of heaving all the armor pulling down on your shoulders it's more evenly distributed by also resting on the waist. Also in fencing women wear a protective breastplate underneath the jacket that is very breast-shaped, not that this adds to or contradicts anything from your lecture. So great video, I hadn't considered the historical aesthetics preferences as applied to armor.

  2. 08:41 There's honestly a lot to talk about regarding division of labour in most cultures. It's true that testosterone equips you to build muscle mass more easily so men on average are stronger. And we know that trained soldiers in history must have been astonishingly strong by our modern standards. Tod's Workshop has that wonderful video about arrows vs plate in which their archer is shooting a 160lb bow and says he can do that all day– that's impressively strong. But that's what happens when you're trained to shoot a bow from childhood. That's pretty normal for an historical longbowman. So women archers shooting those huge longbows? Probably not.

    But, purely discussing biology– a woman who lifts is going to be stronger than a man who doesn't. A woman who works out may still be stronger than a man who works out, depending on their focuses and natural talent. My cousin holds the current title of county strong woman– she's pulling trucks kind of strong. And I've met some incredible women through power lifting who can match male lifters weight for weight.

    Still discussing biology, there are other factors at play too. Oestrogen makes you surprisingly durable– women typically have more endurance, higher pain tolerance, and recover faster. Weight for weight they need less rest between sets. Oestrogen makes you recover from injury faster and gives you a stronger immune system– increasing the likelihood of surviving wounds and infection and living to see another battle.

    And in a fight, well, yes– you probably wouldn't put your women among the archers. You wouldn't put them in positions where raw strength counted for everything. But you don't need to be terrifically strong to stick a dagger in a warrior wearing full plate, you need to be lucky and get the opportunity. Skill counts for more when you wield a rapier. A woman with a spear can still stick you. A woman on a horse can still ride you down. Even a lighter bow will still kill you just as dead if you're a peasant who can't afford armor.

    And those other advantages are quite real. It's possible a woman would have an edge in a long battle, recovering faster and finding the endurance to continue a little longer. With a higher body fat, women survive starvation longer, but also require less food on a long march.

    So– why haven't women been fighters in most cultures?

    Well, women fighters do exist. We have many historical records of women warriors, and they're just the ones we know about and about whom information survived in the historical record. There's a long history of women dressing as men so they could join wars and fight for causes they believed in, and we typically don't know their names or numbers because they were undercover at the time.

    But as a society? Culturally? Women haven't been the fighters. And that's division of labour for you. It's both less fair and more practical than "women don't want to fight and aren't as strong": in a pre-industrial culture, things take a ridiculously long time.

    Food production alone takes up much of the average person's time. I recommend the Townsends video about the differences between a modern and an historical kitchen for a demonstration of that. Before electric stovetops and fridges, cooking food requires you to take hours to light a fire and get it to temperature, stay there keeping the fire at temperature the entire time, prepare things by hand, spend hours processing and preserving the food you do have…

    Add to that farming, animal husbandry, looking after children, making textiles and clothing (hugely time consuming!), house maintenance, and any business ventures you run…. you're a busy woman.

    Someone has to stay and do that stuff or everyone starves. And since you're the one birthing the next generation, it's probably going to be you, not least because if you die, your community loses a lot in potential child labour. (Big families are your pre industrial productivity hack.)

    In fantasy I think the Malazan books do one of the best jobs at building a culture where it's totally normal to have women soldiers. The Malazan empire is industrialised enough to ensure quicker mass food production and shared domestic labour. Its army is standing, not drafted, so they can train soldiers to specialise. And most importantly, battle is chaos, survival is mostly luck, and if a woman sticks you in the face with a sword you're just as dead.

  3. Okeeee.
    I´m confused.

    an armor-video from Shad. And he´s not talking about the Gambeson?
    After all a Gambeson really needs no modification at all to fit´s a female.
    Same for Chainmail, Scalemail, and Brigantinas and stuff…

  4. truth be told….. even if a society existed where men and women fought equally on the battlefield….. it's not likely armor types would be all that different. considering the cost of the local blacksmith to make armors that cater to both genders separately…… it'd be more time/cost effective to just buy a standard set of armor that'd fit most anyone's body type rather than extra to accent one's individual form…….
    not saying that it wouldn't happen in such a hypothetical society…. obviously the wealthy/nobility would have custom armors and all…. hell joan of arc would have her titties displayed proudly in steel i'm sure, but again. only the rich would have it. the average infantry man/woman would have a plain set that isn't gender specific

  5. I have an other explanation as to why females are historically less likely to be a fighter. You can't afford to loose them. Young males, that are not heirs, don't bring a lot to a community. They first have to make a place for themselves before they start to contribute. Young women can be used as cheap labour or be married of and contribute within the existing social structure. They are basically securing the next generation. You see it in most social primate species. The females stay in the group while the young males are cast out and form bachelor groups, which are often fighting a lot.

  6. la protección pectoral en forma de un único domo en el vientre o de una sola punta, (colo lo muestran en el video) es para desviar el corte del arma al pecho.

    ¿porque le ponen ahora sostén ajustados?, no tiene lógica, XD
    Una armadura debe ser maciza, funcional para defensa.
    No tiene sentido el acabado estético de fantasía

    Sera porque el las chicas sensuales son parte de la publicidad, ja, ja, ja.

    Buen vídeo.

  7. hello, I am suggesting a sword, here! https://www.amazon.com/BladesUSA-HK-741-Fantasy-27-Inch-Overall/dp/B00CBRTAUG/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=twin+swords&qid=1569019812&s=gateway&sr=8-1

  8. You should always take a culture's representation of itself with a grain of salt. Chivalry was a cultural ideal that almost nobody seriously tried to live up to. Imagine a society run by the Bloods and the Crips and you've got a pretty good picture of what the medieval aristocracy was like before the early modern emergence of central state power. So the idea that knights protected the weak is largely a fiction. Knights protected the strong.

    As for men being naturally more competitive and aggressive than women, if you've seen high level women's basketball or tennis that's not very plausible. Sure, the average for men may be higher, although whether that is biological or cultural is hard to say. But the bell curves definitely overlap a great deal. The Dahomey Amazons of Benin were notoriously ferocious, although culturally they were considered "men" after disemboweling their first enemy.

    The real biological reason for men being predominant in primitive combat is upper body strength. The effectiveness of primitive weapons is highly dependent upon upper body strength. Even today maybe 10% of women could qualify for infantry positions, the most low-tech form of combat still in existence. However women have excelled in guerrilla warfare, e.g. in the Kurdish PKK.

    A fantasy world in which women took a significant role in combat would mostly likely be a lot like the modern military, in which a few roles are effectively reserved for men, whether or not there's a rule forbidding women. Armor for women would likely reflect their particular roles. In some cases, as with the Dahomey Amazons, the might not wear armor at all

  9. Somehow, Shadiversity keeps me interested in topics that I don’t generally follow or care about. Thanks for broadening my education.

  10. In some ways this seems practical for a female wearing armor,but it also seems not very efficient at all because that design seems to weaken the chestplate since it's harder to secure a spherical area

  11. I felt the negative energy emanating from the comment section when you said that men were better equipped to protect a society, but then I checked and I couldn't find any negative comments cous everyone who clicked on the video was guys looking for "boob armour"

  12. I remember watching a video a few years back where they were talking about the practicality of having a bust on female armour. They looked negatively on it because they saw the bust having a higher chance of a weapon or arrow deflecting off and going through the wearer’s neck or chin. I wish I could remember who made that video.

  13. I get it was UBER RARE for females to fight in wars, so no money in it. I surprized absolutely nobody in all that time made any kind of female armour even for ceremony purposes or a curious blacksmith to just experiment with it.

    Note: Not experiment that way, you damn slanneshi followers.

  14. As far as I can remember from History Class, the crime that the church managed to pin on Jean De Arc (resulting in a death sentence from heresy) was the fact that she was a woman wearing men's clothing. You know, armor.

  15. Unpopular Opinion:
    Boob armor just kind of looks nice when it's not overdone or completely unrealistic. It looks kind of cool in a way. Like the pictures around 2:54

  16. If fantasy was like reality it would literally just be one annoying story after other of Jews showing up as "humble merchants", subverting the crap out of everyone and usurping power, people getting annoyed and kicking the Jews out, then the Jews whining about it to manufacture consent to do it all over again. It's ghey.

  17. The arguments against gender specific armor are pretty selective and weak. In reality there was armor (in some cultures) that depicted breasts and pectorals to imitate the gods. The message here was obvious: The only person that could wade into battle half naked is someone who's already invincible. This is just some soyboy looking at history with woke tinted lenses. What a flaming sausage master.

  18. I love how agreeable and positive this guy is.
    So many of the the other youtubers in the historical arms community are so quick to basically shit on fantasy designs and write them off if they have even the slightest deviation from historical examples.
    This guy seems to have a real love of fantasy and works really hard to focus on the good aspects of the designs without getting too worked up if a sword or shield has the slightest flaw or artistic embellishment

  19. The creators of medieval fantasy think the armor is tight like spandex but it isn't, it has enough space to fit a person and not hurt the wearer.

  20. Sexy armours are good because it distracts the enemy giving the female the chance to strike.
    So yeah the armours from games are very practical. 😏

  21. This may not seem like it's saying much, but you did a much better job at pointing out the inaccuracies and impracticalities in fantasy armor better than ozziescribler and Bikini Armor Battle Damage. And really, every sexism-screaming blog on tumblr.

  22. Remember in the game Dragon Age Inquisition where Iron Bull talks to Cassandra complimenting her for choosing to wear a normal chest plate instead of ones shaped with breasts

  23. A Knight wareing a bonercap walks up to a maiden and gives her a hug. The maiden asks is that your wallet in your pocket or are you just happy to see me. The Knight says; No miss this is where I keep my coin purse thieves wouldn't dare look for it there. LOL

  24. For the extra long codpieces Knights we'll use them to rest their swords on when they did not have sheaths and did not want to carry them when standing still

  25. The cod pieces are dumb for sure. Another reason to not emphasize the female form in armor is that drawing attention to the wearer as being a woman would be a disadvantage. As the presenter stated, the average man is larger and stronger. That is important when you are using shields and swords. The average woman would be at a disadvantage. No reason to identify herself as being smaller and weaker.

  26. This video is perfectly balanced, we get a man of culture talking about shlongs and breast places while the female community of this YouTube channel talks about their boobs

  27. Women weren't allowed to become knights or even fight in those days. Joan of Arc was even burned at the stake because she refused to stop wearing what was then considered "men's clothing", especially the armour. That was probably more a convenient excuse to get rid of her, but it was still considered heresy to "cross-dress" in those days, and military was seen as being male attire.

  28. Thank you so much for some logic in today’s day. Yes, back in the day people understood that men were more well equipped for battle than women were. Logic.

  29. This kind of videos should have index:

    1. Illogical form
    2. Women in a war
    3. Unisex form of a real armor

    I'm not complaining anyway

  30. Well, your sorta have to account for the fact that women have boobs. And I don't think women would be all too happy about having their boobs squashed while wearing armour. That sort of pain would likely detract from their battle focus but also their ability of manoeuvrability in a fight.

    Of course it also depends on what size of bust we are talking about. Some of our dear and beloved lady companions does tend to have quite the large bust.

  31. I wanted a garment that emphasizes the male form so I started wearing a prominent codpiece. I'm getting compliments from girls at work!

  32. I got a question about the armor with the 'physical male appearance' you speak of at the end. Was that just for looks, or was it used as a additional weapon to injure,dominate, humiliate and keep the masses in line. One such suit of armor you have shown in some videos in particular has a very prominent 'attachment; which looks like it was designed just for that purpose. Not so much on the battlefield, but more as a policing role or 'bullying' where that would be used on the victim to cause physical injury and injury to the victims manhood (or femlehood) as well?

  33. "So why didn't this armor exist in medieval times or in history in general?…"

    Women didn't fight. The end. Just saved you 14 minutes.

  34. Female boxing and soccer chest protector is a modern example of body armor adapted for the female form (see link below). Female ballistic body armor is similar to male armor and has a specific design structure. It is designed to dissipate and stop a bullet impact, but it would do little to stop an arrow or a knife. Unless it included actual plate, which would stop an arrow, but that would make it heavy. What if they aim their arrow for below your chest guard, say your abdomen? Old fashioned chainmail would stop a knife, but it might shatter from a ballistic impact. True, you could use liquid armor, crystallin material, but this is expensive and has a limited life span (as does Kevlar).

    Cheatah Sport and Tactical had this to say:
    "There’s a good reason a flat chested woman is modeling that armored vest in the tactical catalog, right? They’d have a hard time selling that vest if they showed what the fit looks like on the typical female officer’s body.

    Women in law enforcement’s problems with an armored vest fit is no secret. They feel smashed, the vest shifts around on the body, the velcro sides bust open all the time, they vest lays way out in front of them which results in a loss of  ballistic coverage, and their thoracic back experiences significant pressure from wearing this heavy awkward structure for long periods of time.

    We see many manufactures enthusiastically introducing “female cut” armored vests. They’ve added darting, cups, multiple closure panels,  etc. Police Magazine wrote a very thorough article on women’s vests and what’s new:


    The Police Magazine article doesn’t address the major contributing factor to the women’s problem  – breast tissue moves. And it moves a lot. They also aren’t taking into account the disproportionate weight of breast tissue relative to the torso. Darting, cups, and multiple paneling enclosures do nothing to help this…."


    Storelli Women's BodyShield Soccer Crop Top


  35. Congrats on being referenced (for this video specifically) in a video by NuxTaku (AKA Lord Nuxanor) in his "Greatest plots in H games" video.

  36. I always thought the large cod piece was to give the wearer plenty of space to keep his hard armor from contacting his soft family jewels – hard and repeatedly…

  37. Last armor he showed before his outro is literally a fan drawing of Saber from Fate/Stay Night trio series…. neat… (Zero and Unlimited Blade Works being the other two)

  38. Women couldn't fight. Don't be a p****, you know they couldn't fight.
    The ancient battlefield was a bunch of large men pushing each other around, and murdering them with weapons.
    Women would get tossed around like children and slaughtered.
    The only way women can kill men with physical violence is when the men they are murdering let them.

  39. It couldn't possibly be because women weren't typically in combat & therefore it wasn't prudent for black smiths & armor smiths to specialize armor for females, unless it would be custom made, but any woman who would have the $$ for their own custom armor could hire male body guards & were probably nobility & therefore wouldn't be in combat anyways, right?

  40. Well I suppose the boob armor could be distracting to the enemy. She could use that to her advantage……just like in real life.

  41. Oh wow! Campfire, Another thing I didn't know existed! I've been doing all that stuff manually for my stories and its getting old haha!😅 I'm so glad I stumbled upon your channel from Jazza. I'm learning so much new stuff for my creations and just in general!

  42. The idea of knights running around with a metal woody has actually ruined the medieval period seriously think about seeing that some dude running away from a guy in full plate armor with a 7 inch metal dick 6 inches ahead of him

  43. One of the reasons why I don´t believe boobs plates ever existed is because there is no way a woman of the Middle Ages would be seen flashing her chest that way. Men acentuating their atributes was fashionable, but ladies enhancing their boobs wasn´t. It was inmoral and probably a sin. So if there ever was any lady in armour, definitely she would be wearing a normal plate.

  44. Well, also most fantasy thinks armor was skin tight vs having enough space to have a gambison and chain shirt with a gap to spare just in case of a blunt impact or a piercing and having a talbard and chain or a padded armor over the plate made a arrow even getting to the plate harder

    Ceremonial armor looking like animals, or demons,or attire of the day was also a thing often gifted or worn in parades but not on the battlefield or in Jousts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *