Female plate armor with or without breast cups.

[Wolbryne]

Ok so it's been heatedly debated, argued, angrily shouted and flamed over breast cups on female plate armor breast plates.

It's now so much that the mod comments pages get flooded and some locked over this.

In an attempt to bring this debate to an end I contacted Professor Clifford J. Rogers. he's a professor of history at the United States Military Academy at West Point. He has also been a Leverhulme Visiting Professor at Swansea University, an Olin Fellow in Military and Strategic History at Yale, and a Fulbright Fellow at the Institute of Historical Research in London. If anyone HE would be the one to end this debate once and for all.

 

I Contacted prof. Rogers over facebook and asked him about this and here is my question and his answer.

 

"Did the few women in medieval history that actually wore armor have breast cups on the breast plate or wear male armor with the breast tied down? Also wouldn't breast cups on the armor be counter-effective vs blows, arrows etc in the way that the impact wouldn't be deflected away but actually caught and helped find the center chest and thus assist the enemy in killing the wearer of said armor?

 

lastly, can I quote your answer on skyrimnexus.com?

 

Sincerely

Per Westman"

 

and his answer:

 

"Per,

The number of women who wore plate armor in the Middle Ages is extremely, extremely small. I can think of only 2 probable examples, Joan of Arc and Big Margot (and the latter may not have been wearing plate). More common-- mainly because it was in use much longer-- would be mail armor. However, I think fantasy-style breast cups would be very unlikely; as you say, they would not serve well for deflection, which is very important. Also, the fifteenth-century illumniations of Joan show her in essentially male armor, not with breast cups. There's also a 15th c illumination of Minerva in plate armor in British Library MS Harley 4431 fo. 102v, which you could view via the British Library ImagesOline site. And see Bibliotheque nationale de France, MS FR226 fo. 58 for another woman in basically a male breastplate.

 

Yes, you may quote me.

 

Best,

Cliff"

 

 

So there you have it people. Though it might look sexier that way, the only person that wore armored breast cups was probably Red Sonja

[DeadSpace]

there were arguments about that? O.O the age of plate armor was dominated by males...women were 2nd, 3rd class citizens. they didn't fight, were told not to fight, and only in rare verging on unique instance did they fight. a little history should have stuffed any argument before it started. and if plate had been made for women, it would have done it as simply as possible. larger chest but no individual cups. basically male versions beaten out in the chest to provide a bit more room.

[JenLit]

I salute you, and the lengths you went to clearing this up. :) Never knew the question was a hot topic, but I did ask myself, too. Glad that I agree with Mr. Rogers on this. ;) As a side note, don't do modern female police riot armors just the same? Why would anyone funnel projectiles toward one's heart! "Suicide-facilitating armor..."

[cooltrickle]

the age of plate armor was dominated by males...women were 2nd, 3rd class citizens. they didn't fight, were told not to fight, and only in rare verging on unique instance did they fight.

 

In the 21st century, women have more opportunity than ever to take part in war. The British military personnel killed in Afghanistan since 2001 is 391. How is it that only two of those casualties are women? Bullets and bombs don't discriminate, so the only possible explanation is that female soldiers don't want to be on the front line near the danger. Neither do men, but they do it anyway, because it's their duty. So, please have some more respect for the men that have given up their lives in defence of our countries. Don't make any more remarks implying that men are sexist or oppressive for trying to shield women from the barbarity of war, now or at any time in history.

Edited December 19, 2011 by cooltrickle

[JenLit]

the age of plate armor was dominated by males...women were 2nd, 3rd class citizens. they didn't fight, were told not to fight, and only in rare verging on unique instance did they fight.

In the 21st century, women have more opportunity than ever to take part in war. The British military personnel killed in Afghanistan since 2001 is 391. How is it that only two of those casualties are women? Bullets and bombs don't discriminate, so the only possible explanation is that female soldiers don't want to be on the front line near the danger. Neither do men, but they do it anyway, because it's their duty. So, please have some more respect for the men that have given up their lives in defence of our countries. Don't make any more remarks implying that men are sexist or oppressive for trying to shield women from the barbarity of war, now or at any time in history.

Not to impose my reading of DeadSpace's post onto others, but I didn't perceive it at all as implying 'sexist or oppressive' behavior.

 

This may be a case of the age old problem of the written word, being subject to interpretation of its reader, void of all personal interaction and hints to actual intentions. And even face-to-face, everyone knows we still fail to fully synchronize our thoughts at both ends of a conversation.

 

And then there is this, giving the benefit of the doubt and exercising one's chance to ask for clarification before falling to suppositions. "If you can't quote it, if it's between the lines, it might not be there at all."

[danshive]

So... they WEREN'T 2nd and 3rd class citizens?

[terjesin]

There is the "chainmail bikini" and there is the elder scrolls approach, like the historian you asked said there was only a matter of 2 recorded female fighters by name, and in most if not all cultures back then women were non combating so its hard to answer this one.

In this game as opposed to many other fantasy games out there, female armor actually does a good job protecting the wearer. however flattening out the chest section can also be consider a matter of choice for the wearer, the few people having plate armor in medieval times also tended to show-off as well to look more intimidating. so strutting a bit may be considered just that.

[JenLit]

so its hard to answer this one

We do know they have their hearts at this world's place though, don't we?

In this game as opposed to many other fantasy games out there, female armor actually does a good job protecting the wearer.

Also, come Skyrim, come this world's physix... to a degree. ;) Thus directing any projectile and blade nicely towards the center chest part and your most vulnerable organ. But YOU could argue, nothing penetrates anything in Skyrim, so, in effect you are right. Until TES VI, destructible materials effects, that is...

 

Edit: Oh wait, arrows stick, so the argument would be: No matter where it hits, no deflection taking place, no protective value whatsoever, hence a hit in the knee is as bad as in the heart, case closed. Cup armor go.

 

** grrr *** still hurts my immersion ;) ...

 

<typoedit>

Edited December 19, 2011 by JenLit

[cooltrickle]

the age of plate armor was dominated by males...women were 2nd, 3rd class citizens. they didn't fight, were told not to fight, and only in rare verging on unique instance did they fight.

In the 21st century, women have more opportunity than ever to take part in war. The British military personnel killed in Afghanistan since 2001 is 391. How is it that only two of those casualties are women? Bullets and bombs don't discriminate, so the only possible explanation is that female soldiers don't want to be on the front line near the danger. Neither do men, but they do it anyway, because it's their duty. So, please have some more respect for the men that have given up their lives in defence of our countries. Don't make any more remarks implying that men are sexist or oppressive for trying to shield women from the barbarity of war, now or at any time in history.

Not to impose my reading of DeadSpace's post onto others, but I didn't perceive it at all as implying 'sexist or oppressive' behavior.

...

And then there is this, giving the benefit of the doubt and exercising one's chance to ask for clarification before falling to suppositions. "If you can't quote it, if it's between the lines, it might not be there at all."

 

Good advice. I just wish people would give men the benefit of the doubt too, and not just assume they view women as second class citizens.

 

Who, if not men, do you think he was refering to when he said that women were second class citizens and that they were prevented from fighting? Who was treating women like second class citizens? Who was preventing them from fighting? Women, themselves? Children? If not, that only leaves men as the likeliest answer. So, I didn't have to read between the lines.

 

So... they WEREN'T 2nd and 3rd class citizens?

 

Do you really think the men that were massacred in battles were privileged? If you had more compassion and sympathy for men, it might lead you to accept that men suffer too. And perhaps, even be grateful for their many sacrifices they have made throughout history.

[nivea]

the age of plate armor was dominated by males...women were 2nd, 3rd class citizens. they didn't fight, were told not to fight, and only in rare verging on unique instance did they fight.

 

In the 21st century, women have more opportunity than ever to take part in war. The British military personnel killed in Afghanistan since 2001 is 391. How is it that only two of those casualties are women? Bullets and bombs don't discriminate, so the only possible explanation is that female soldiers don't want to be on the front line near the danger. Neither do men, but they do it anyway, because it's their duty. So, please have some more respect for the men that have given up their lives in defence of our countries. Don't make any more remarks implying that men are sexist or oppressive for trying to shield women from the barbarity of war, now or at any time in history.

 

I do not mean to be rude but women WHERE considered less then human for most of the worlds history in varying degrees of oppression, even NOW there many places where a women does not have the rights a man does.

To say other wise is a insult to any gender/race/religion that has been or still is being oppressed, perhaps in fairy tales every thing is great and nothing like that ever happened. But in the real world and even in TES lore slavery and oppression run rampant, there is much of that even in Skyrim.

 

Truth is a women was never encouraged to be on a battle field let alone wear armor made just for a women, I am sure even blacksmiths making armor for a women would land them in deep trouble with male masses.

I find it really odd people would think a women in plate armor would have large boobs pointing out, that calls far to much attention to a women who should NOT be on the battlefield in the first place.

Yes lets sneak into the army, but wear large breasted plate armor thats sure not to get us assaulted or put to death.

 

I DO think it looks better with alittle indentation for where the breast are cosmetically, but I think they over do it in Skyrim.