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?
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.
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.
Chris from suikoden 3.
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.
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.
