Every fake-historian complaining about unrealistic boob armor in fantasy games needs to look up historical codpieces.
Armor was a status symbol and includes sexualized designs to demonstrate the girth of your penis prowess. If females were in a historical armor setting, I bet you boob armor would have become at least as big a thing as codpieces were.
I mean, the ancient Greeks painted abs and male nipples in their armor, lol. Gotta be sexy while fighting a war, at least if you are in the back just commanding people. It’s not like these Kings or Generals really saw someone swing a sword at them or needed actually functional armor. It’s just shiny metal proving you had more money than the other soldiers in many cases.
It’s not like these Kings or Generals really saw someone swing a sword at them or needed actually functional armor.
You might be surprised there. Many of the best historical commanders led close enough to be in serious danger. Pelopidas, who led an elite unit of all-male lovers, the Sacred Band, died in combat attempting to slay a prominent foe. Alexander the Great regularly risked his life and was dependent on his personal bodyguard to keep him from getting his ass killed. Caesar famously took up arms several times in the front lines to inspire his men. Even Augustus, who was not a particularly soldierly sort, was wounded in combat.
I both agree and disagree, but I’m not sure which wins out.
Agree because yeah, codpieces were obviously ostentatious and nonfunctional, and why would you not expect women to do the same thing if given the same chance?
On the other hand, the risk imposed by boobplate is more substantial than codpieces. The groom area is not a very good target for opponents because it’s kinda hard to reach and it will harm your target less than the head and chest areas. Boob armour, on the other hand, is right at the spot most thrusts and many cuts are going to be targetted at regardless. The risk of directing glancing blows back in towards your vital organs is greater with boobplate than codpieces.
It’s not like these Kings or Generals really saw someone swing a sword at them or needed actually functional armor
I think this depends on the time period, location, and individual King/General. There’s a reasonably long Wikipedia page on monarchs killed in action. And more might have been injured in combat, or attacked but safe thanks to their armour (and skill). On the other hand, some might be included there mainly because they were overrun and died in action even though they never intended to be in action at all.
Mono boob plate a la tomb raider I think would be a good compromise between defense and aesthetics. It doesn’t have the massive stress concentration in the middle, but can still accentuate desirable features.
Armor was a status symbol and includes sexualized designs to demonstrate the girth of your penis prowess.
As I understand it, it was also a sort of advertisement. It was basically saying “It took a lot of money to make this fancy armor, so I’m worth more alive and ransom-able rather then dead on this battlefield”
Every fake-historian complaining about unrealistic boob armor in fantasy games needs to look up historical codpieces.
Armor was a status symbol and includes sexualized designs to demonstrate the girth of your
penisprowess. If females were in a historical armor setting, I bet you boob armor would have become at least as big a thing as codpieces were.I mean, the ancient Greeks painted abs and male nipples in their armor, lol. Gotta be sexy while fighting a war, at least if you are in the back just commanding people. It’s not like these Kings or Generals really saw someone swing a sword at them or needed actually functional armor. It’s just shiny metal proving you had more money than the other soldiers in many cases.
I mean, there’s tons of games where female characters wear basically metal bikinis that are used in combat. It’s not the same.
You might be surprised there. Many of the best historical commanders led close enough to be in serious danger. Pelopidas, who led an elite unit of all-male lovers, the Sacred Band, died in combat attempting to slay a prominent foe. Alexander the Great regularly risked his life and was dependent on his personal bodyguard to keep him from getting his ass killed. Caesar famously took up arms several times in the front lines to inspire his men. Even Augustus, who was not a particularly soldierly sort, was wounded in combat.
I both agree and disagree, but I’m not sure which wins out.
Agree because yeah, codpieces were obviously ostentatious and nonfunctional, and why would you not expect women to do the same thing if given the same chance?
On the other hand, the risk imposed by boobplate is more substantial than codpieces. The groom area is not a very good target for opponents because it’s kinda hard to reach and it will harm your target less than the head and chest areas. Boob armour, on the other hand, is right at the spot most thrusts and many cuts are going to be targetted at regardless. The risk of directing glancing blows back in towards your vital organs is greater with boobplate than codpieces.
I think this depends on the time period, location, and individual King/General. There’s a reasonably long Wikipedia page on monarchs killed in action. And more might have been injured in combat, or attacked but safe thanks to their armour (and skill). On the other hand, some might be included there mainly because they were overrun and died in action even though they never intended to be in action at all.
That’s why we need boobplate with offensive capabilities.
Machine guns built into the nipple ports.
Mono boob plate a la tomb raider I think would be a good compromise between defense and aesthetics. It doesn’t have the massive stress concentration in the middle, but can still accentuate desirable features.
As I understand it, it was also a sort of advertisement. It was basically saying “It took a lot of money to make this fancy armor, so I’m worth more alive and ransom-able rather then dead on this battlefield”