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.
This is a common misconception but it’s just not true. As you can see in this video mobility is hardly a problem. It certainly would be possible that a piece could be bent or damaged badly enough to hinder you, but a properly fit set is going to let you do whatever you need to do in a battle. You are certainly right that it was expensive though, full plate was similar to buying a luxury car. It was rare but not that rare, a sign of wealth and social class but not like only kings could wear it. And it certainly was not strictly ornamental.
There is only once context of actual use where this is true: jousting. And this is because it was a sport that the competitors expected to walk away from.
Apart from that, what you said is a complete myth. Mobility what highly important on the battlefield, and armorers had to keep that in mind throughout the middle ages. There are many instances where troops acquire or are given pieces of armor that they later discard because it was too heavy or hindered them, and the weight you’re imagining is not all that great. And this is not a problem unique to the middle ages - it still happens up to the modern day
As for full plate, it’s not actually as heavy as you think it is because there are a lot of shaping techniques used to gain the maximum amount of strength for the least amount of weight. Generally Late Medieval full plate harness weighed 35-55lb Source
There are medieval reenactment groups such as the Society of Creative Anachronism (SCA) or Historical Medieval Battle (HMB) where people will regularly wear armor and fight. I myself do this, and my kit fluctuates between 40-55lb depending on what I’m fighting with that day. Adding that to my body weight results in a total of about 200lb, and dare you to claim that people at that weight can’t move around.
What’s even funnier is that groups like HMB tend to have armor that’s significantly heavier than the medieval period because they need their armor to last a lot longer. In period, men at arms only needed their armor to last a few battles, while reenactors look to use their armor on a weekly-to-monthly basis for years
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.
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?
Ok.
zxro
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.
This is a common misconception but it’s just not true. As you can see in this video mobility is hardly a problem. It certainly would be possible that a piece could be bent or damaged badly enough to hinder you, but a properly fit set is going to let you do whatever you need to do in a battle. You are certainly right that it was expensive though, full plate was similar to buying a luxury car. It was rare but not that rare, a sign of wealth and social class but not like only kings could wear it. And it certainly was not strictly ornamental.
deleted by creator
There is only once context of actual use where this is true: jousting. And this is because it was a sport that the competitors expected to walk away from.
Apart from that, what you said is a complete myth. Mobility what highly important on the battlefield, and armorers had to keep that in mind throughout the middle ages. There are many instances where troops acquire or are given pieces of armor that they later discard because it was too heavy or hindered them, and the weight you’re imagining is not all that great. And this is not a problem unique to the middle ages - it still happens up to the modern day
As for full plate, it’s not actually as heavy as you think it is because there are a lot of shaping techniques used to gain the maximum amount of strength for the least amount of weight. Generally Late Medieval full plate harness weighed 35-55lb Source
There are medieval reenactment groups such as the Society of Creative Anachronism (SCA) or Historical Medieval Battle (HMB) where people will regularly wear armor and fight. I myself do this, and my kit fluctuates between 40-55lb depending on what I’m fighting with that day. Adding that to my body weight results in a total of about 200lb, and dare you to claim that people at that weight can’t move around.
What’s even funnier is that groups like HMB tend to have armor that’s significantly heavier than the medieval period because they need their armor to last a lot longer. In period, men at arms only needed their armor to last a few battles, while reenactors look to use their armor on a weekly-to-monthly basis for years
Almost completely wrong
Something about humans relates sex and danger. We like having them together
You might want to rephrase that. It would be very easy to misinterpret.
Ah, you mean danger cosplay. Yeah, ok. Even kinksters have safe words and things like safe, sane, and consensual.
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.