If no boob shape, then boobs squished. Also I think outward curves are harder to bash in than flat portions, assuming equal thickness?
ETA: yes, I do have boobs. No, mine won’t squish flat.
Hits to full armor aren’t about cutting through or breaking the armor, but trying to get as hard of a hit as possible. One central outward curve will deflect hits.
Two bulbous curves next to each other will deflect hits on the outside but focus hits on the inner curve into a shape that will ensure all of the power in the hit goes right to the chest. A great way to ensure the wind is knocked out of the wearer.
Plus, the biggest concern regarding the deflection of blow by plate armor was lances. A lance blow is often described as having the momentum of both the rider and the horse behind it (not quite true, but certainly more than just the knight). That is a lot of force for a body to absorb
If no boob shape, then boobs squished.
Hi, lady here who owns and wears armor sometimes. There are a few things wrong with this.
(Prefacing that only a very very small number of women historically wore armor)
You’ll find that basically ALL medieval plate bulges out in the chest. That is specifically because dome shapes are stronger, but also for ease of movement. A flat plate will make it harder to bring your shoulder back (or you’ll need to make a bigger arm hole).
You’ll also find that most people who do stuff while in plate armor tend not to carry a lot of fat, and since boobs are mostly fat, women who wear armor “for a living”, and are thus swinging pole arms quite a lot, tend not to be very busty.
Thirdly, the main difference between my armor and the armor the guys are wearing is not in the plate, but in the padding underneath. I have a gambeson and armor coat that is thicker above and above my breasts than right in front. There’s basically a boob-slot in the padding, so that a hit to my chest gets absorbed by my body instead of my boobs.
I’m so glad you wrote all of that, and so much better than I could have. Men have no idea of the ways in which breasts need support, or how generally the better it looks, the less comfortable it is.
Excellent write-up, I’d just like to say as an irrelevant aside
@Tar_alcaran @Shivirani The typical breastplate shape is what I call the “Robin’s breast,” a swollen dome shape that protects the vitals from strikes to the body center.
So does that mean if my husband gets armor I could wear it too, I’d just need a different gambeson? My breasts protrude a couple of inches even in a sports bra.
Also, added chest muscle makes your boobs stick out more…
Is a breastplate/gambeson/armor coat etc something you can effectively buy online, or is it something you want to try on in-store before you buy? And where did you get yours from?
Buying armor is like buying a suit, and all the answers are kind of similar.
You can get a cheap mass produced one, but it won’t fit as well as a tailored one, and that won’t be as good as a custom made one. You can wear someone else’s (within reason), as long as they’re mostly the same size, but it won’t be great.
A gambeson or arming coat (typo before) is similar, off the rack is fine, but it’ll fit much better if you have it custom made. And like bras, being a woman is expensive here. I bought a good one and modified it myself.
I got my armor custom made by a guy in Ukraine like 15 years ago, the whole thing was 6000 euros which was a huge bargain. But if you just want a breastplate for occasional use (larp, cosplay, etc) getting one online and accepting it’s kinda awkward is very much an option. If you need it to actually stop swords (reenactment, HEMA) that’s still an option, but you’ll need to be much more selective.
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).
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.
Do we have modern sexualized plate carriers? I know we have the cat-ear helmet bit, but how far can we go?
Something about humans relates sex and danger. We like having them together
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.
Dragon Age quote from Iron Bull: Some high-ranking women wear ornamental crap with tits hammered into it. One good shot, and all that cleavage gets knocked right into the sternum. Real messy. Good on you for going practical. …Leaves something to the imagination, too.
It’s weird how I still recognise the armor guy.
Hear me out: a metal 1990s Lara Croft uniboob. Hits are no longer directed to the sternum.
If that isn’t credible enough for you, make the uniboob bigger, redirecting force outward, away from the chest.
If that isn’t credible enough for you, a massive uniboob containing a tiny gnome sorcerer able to slay at range. Basically a lil green skinned tiddy tank.
That’s just called 1600s era half plate.
As halberds and other armor penetrating weapons became normal (and Guns), the focus of armorers was on deflection rather than outright stopping blows.
Also, iron became cheaper and thus mass produced. So in some sense armor got worse, but far more people were wearing armor. The small bits (gloves, legs, etc etc) couldn’t be custom made per person anymore because of mass production templates. But armor was well on its way out by then anyway as guns were obviously the future.
Ok, so the issue with that is it will direct arrow and crossbow bolts upwards towards the neck and face, so you will need to add an angled gorget with a lip to redirect the bolts/arrows.
This was an actual armor design for a while, but it is not as pronounced as you would imagine.
