Female plate armor with or without breast cups.

[Arcadiast]

@Seviche

 

you Sir certainly have a degree in human psychology. You are using the same techniques, Diet products use with the "Before" and "After" Pictures only slightly different. You take a "Normal" Picture of a Woman in Armor (no "real" fighting woman from history though...just a Woman in Armor made for men) and change it to show ridiculous proportions to win over peoples minds to your side...brilliant.

 

Did it ever occur to you that if Woman had the same fighting History men have that Armor would have been more fitted to their proportions? You try to say that Armor with spare place for woman breasts is ridiculous but I ask you sir considering History, are women who fight not "ridiculous" in first place? this is historically correct not politically by the way.

 

We are talking about a fantasy game here not an actual recreation of Human history. Woman can and have fought but to 95% it was men and so Armor was designed for men if more Women had fought we would have quickly realized that they have a different anatomy for which we have to create fitting Armor and had done so.

 

Thank God, in modding we have room for both ideas. So how about you stop trying to manipulate me thinking your way is the right way and I stop trying to tell you its not!

 

Thank You!

[masseffectman1]

I brought this topic up with my wife and four of her female friends. They all came to an agreement that if a woman had relatively large sized breasts (C cup onwards), then armour with indentations would certainly be more comfortable against a flat chest piece which would flatten and constrict. This is the opinion of five actual females. We know what history provided the few women in battle with, but let's not forget that ALL armour at that time was designed by men for men, of course there was no space for breasts.

 

Fact is, i don't care what a male professor says, from a females perspective, concerning comfortability and looks, they would choose armour with a slight breast shape if they were a larger cup size. Anyone saying it isn't realistic should really think hard about that comment, considering that they're talking about a game where dragons exist and anyone can shoot fireballs and sparks from their hands.

[ginnyfizz]

Well I can speak from the point of view of a woman with a large cup size (very considerably bigger than a C let's say). I have mentioned previously that I once tried on a real (male) cuirass from the 16th/17th century. It was certainly a tight fit, but people of that era were generally smaller. When I have tried one that was scaled up proportionately to the amount that folks have grown in size since then - and I have (yes, it is a little embarassing admitting to having played Maid Marian in re-enactments in my youth, but that's what you get for having abundant auburn locks and being nifty with a longbow)- I have had no trouble breathing in it or running about in it. I certainly perspired a bit (see having quilted jerkin under leather jerkin with a touch of chainmail thrown in).

 

Back to the modern age, I have also previously mentioned that I have worn what is effectively body armor in non-combatant circumstances, to wit, riding a horse cross country (body protectors are compulsory in competition.) There is no issue having a buxom pair stuffed inside a unisex body protector, in fact when you are galloping through mud and getting that churned up in your face, it's a positive advantage not to get smacked in the eye by your knockers as well.

 

Nevertheless did someone see that pic from the Royal Armouries that I linked somewhere earlier, of a Campanian cuirass (presumably made for a dude)? It appeared to have modest sized boobie cups. There may well be something about pre-Roman armies that they never let on.....

 

Edit - here you go

 

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l255/janepreddy/breastplate-II197.jpg

[elleonblanco]

It's a fantasy game set in a fantasy world, there is no right or wrong.

 

Most people seem to forget that very few men had armor in Medieval times. Armor was EXPENSIVE and was TAILOR MADE to the purchaser. Most weapons were every day farm implements. The axe you split heads with today was chopping wood this evening. Armor was made from the forge flavor of the day. Certainly NOT ebony, glass, or some other non practical material. Would you wear a suit of armor made of wood? Ebony is a tree certainly not a mineral.

 

The TES series is as stated above simply fantasy. Enjoy it for that. If you want your companion wearing Lynda Carter's breastplate from Wonder Woman that is completely your indulgence.

 

For you overly PC folks. In medieval times whole armies were basically fodder for weapons and 99.9% of all citizens were peons. Women did not fight in wars and certainly didn't look like Amazon warrior runway models. (ie. Lydia with the face mod) Last time I looked Earth only had one moon unless you read Fox News. So in all of Tamriel we can have it whatever way we want it as it is a world that we can create to fit our fantasies.

 

I am fine with women having breasts on their armor in game. If you don't like it hack the files so they wear the male version. Basically GET OVER IT!

 

And.... don't get me started on Middle Eastern culture. :facepalm:

 

rant off:

[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.

In europe maybe, plenty of women of the Samurai class fought.

 

*sigh* yes...i know, but skyrim isn't based around asian or eastern fantasy is it? if it was there wouldn't be full plate, mobility was valued more than protection, which was mainly for arrows and the possibility you could get lucky with the opponent hitting a strong point (metal plates were sometime incorporated) in your armor during a sword duel. if armor was bothered with at all.

Edited December 22, 2011 by DeadSpace

[Wolbryne]

@Lachdonin

 

"Funny though those pictures are, their terribly innacurate."

no s*** sherlock lol

 

"It's also not appropriate to ask a military historian about whats historically accurate for a game set in a different universe."

I think it's very appropriate indeed since he would know what is feasible and if it would work against the designs of and thoughts behind real armor. and even in skyrim, a computer game as you so kindly point out, a blade thrust, axe blow, a fired arrow all penetrate and kill you. And angles will still deflect things to the sides. pick up an apple and throw it around in a room and you'll see. the apple don't stop and fall to the ground if it hits something at an angle, it bounces on in the direction given to it from the angled surface it hits with seemingly the same mathematical rules which applies to the same thing irl.

 

"First, i have served. As such, i have worn body armour, and have had several female colleagues who have worn both the standard uni-sex as well as the specialised female armour. They have stated, without a doubt, that the properly fitted female armour is superior in every way. Yes, it is in context to the modern dynamic of warfare, but the same developmental paradigm exists."

actually no it don't really. You see I have served too and I too have worn body armor. I have also tried on exact copies of the armor used in 1361 at the battle of Visby (google it), at the Visby museum. And I can tell you that there is NOTHING modern body armor has in common with medieval plate armor other than being "armor". The fits are different. modern armor is tight fitting, medieval was not. You had a clothes and padding and free space under the plate. So saying that 5 women, 10 women or even a billion women who have experience wearing modern body armor and what they feel is "comfortable" is completely irrelevant to the designs of medieval plate armor.

 

"Second, my arguement is not in support of armour even approaching the crappy photo-shop we see above. I even said as much. Plate armour requies specialised fitting for an individual, and the best armours are in fact close, almost form fitting. We don't have to deal with this fact these days because when we wear plate armour we aren't expecting it to save out lives. As such, the fit isn't as important as it once was."

OUCH man just OUCH. That really hurt. here I was thinking that my 3 click-30 second alteration of that pic was something extraordinary... /sarcasm.

about the armor, how wrong you are. The plate armor was pretty much ALL personalized, made from measurements of the wearers body. But it was NOT close fitting. Let me explain this to you.

1. The armor had to, as I mentioned before, leave room for clothes, padding and free air.

2. The free air was there to be filled with dents and for the tips of crossbow bolts (which could often penetrate plate armor depending on distance and angle vs the plate) to poke through so the tip would be between the plate and the padding and not inside your body. Having tight fitted plate armor would mean that if you got hit and the plate got dented you would take trauma from the dent and possibly even die. The breast plate was ESPECIALLY made like this because of all the vital organs inside that general area. you can try this on yourself actually. take an arched piece of metal and place on the table over your fist so that it touches over your knuckles and then hit it hard with a hammer... hurt your knuckles didn't it? now have the metal there but place your hand flat on the table under it so that there's an inch or so of air in between. Hit it with a hammer again... didn't feel that did you?

 

"Massive breast cups are, i agree, absurd, and i think that even from an asthetic perpsective they look like crap. Proper fitting and accomidation is an important component of armour design.The standard, bowed design of a breastplate may indeed be avle to accomidate breats of rather ample size, but it creates a pocket below which compromises the integrety of the armour its self. As such, a male breastplate, while functional, is not optimal. Considering in the TES universe women have been fighting for a long period of time, you would expect that this would be taken into consideration. "

again. stop comparing medieval plate armor to modern body armor. there SHOULD be a pocket of air over the entire torso area. if not, you've done it wrong. it's the plate and the geometric design of the plate that absorbs the damage nothing else. Think of a roman design bridge. The bridge arc structure made the bridge hold itself up and actually got stronger with weight on top of it.

 

"That's not part of the arguement however, as the question is the presence of what amounts to a bra cup. As i have already said, if the standard bowed style is use, it creates a pocket below the breats which diminishes the overal integrety of the armour due to a lack of support. This has two solutions. Additional padding to fill the void (As was done with Joan'de Arc's armour) or a flatter chest. The flattening of the chest then causes compression that even flat-chested women would find uncomfortable. The solution to this is a change in the upper curvature, and the creation of a cup."

Wrong then wrong, then more wrong and then finally topped off with some... you guessed it, more wrong.

As I said before in this post, the plate armor was MEANT to have free air over pretty much the entire torso. The armor was made to support itself. That's why the armor wasn't flat but arced. Usually with a center edge to create angles for deflection. The arc made it support itself and absorb the kinetic energy into it's bigger self rather than into the body beneath it. As for the "as was done to joan..." that's just laughable. you just assumed that from your own personal beliefs and tried to pass it off as fact. THIS is the REAL historical facts about her armor. After the inquest at Poitiers, Charles VII commissioned a suit of armor for Jeanne at the samme time that he set up a military household for her. The registra of the city hall of Albi, who saw her, testified that “Jeanne went armed in white iron, entirely from head to foot.” Moreover, Guy and André de Laval saw her on horseback near Romorantin “armed entirely in white, exept, for the head, a little ax in her hand, seated on a great black courser.”

 

The accounts of the treasurer Hémon Reguier refer to the purchase of that suit of armor in April 1429: “100 livres tournois were paid and delivered by the afforesaid treasure to the master armorer for a complete harness for the afforesaid Maid.” With this harness, Jeanne was equipped in the samme fashion as the men-of-arms of her era.

 

Jean Chartier reported that she was “armed as quickly as possible with a comlete harness such as would have suited a knight who was part of the arma and born in the king’s court. “She was equipped, moreover, like knights of a certain rank: 100 livres tournois was a significant sum.

 

The creation of cups would deflect arrows and blows in to the sternum in-staid of out and away from the armor and it would compromise the "arc" structure of the breast plate with a nice edge just above the sternum so that you would BREAK your sternum when hit hard right in the chest.

 

"Finally, i have not gotten the historical accuracy wrong. Unless, of course, you have some insight that has been kept from the historical community, since i am in fact agreeing that the historical points raised in the first post. I am also not wrong in the contextual points, though without calling an armourer and an engineer in here i fail to see any other way of convincing you of the information.

 

At best, we would see what aproximates a B cup, but it is a cup size none the less.

 

And all of this is completely besides the asthetic varriable. "

No you haven't gotten the historical accuracy wrong since what you write isn't based on history at all but make-belief and personal opinions presented as facts.

In reality they didn't just slam a piece of metal to someones chest and hope it'd work. There are thoughts, calculations and tons of math and physics behind the shape and design of an armor. All of this have already been covered in this mammoth post by me. But you don't believe me? You want information? HERE! read it all.

 

 

@Arcadiast

 

"you Sir certainly have a degree in human psychology. You are using the same techniques, Diet products use with the "Before" and "After" Pictures only slightly different. You take a "Normal" Picture of a Woman in Armor (no "real" fighting woman from history though...just a Woman in Armor made for men) and change it to show ridiculous proportions to win over peoples minds to your side...brilliant."

Seviche quoted me so I think you actually meant to direct your post at me. That post was not trying to win anyone over. It wasn't trying to use any psychology of any kind. And I wasn't trying to pass anything off as being REAL in any way. I simply did a quick google to get a picture of a woman in armor and then mushroom stamp her twice in the back to make the breast cups. I exaggerated the cups so that nobody could miss them. And then I used my humorous creation to make a fun post about not derailing my thread. Nothing more. Well maybe there was some psychology in the post since I tried to make a humorous post so that the people who were derailing the thread wouldn't get their panties in a pinch over me pointing my finger at them. And it seems like my post worked, either because of the humor part or because the people addressed were more mature than I had counted on, because the derailing stopped and there was not flame war as a response to my post.

 

"Did it ever occur to you that if Woman had the same fighting History men have that Armor would have been more fitted to their proportions? You try to say that Armor with spare place for woman breasts is ridiculous but I ask you sir considering History, are women who fight not "ridiculous" in first place? this is historically correct not politically by the way.

 

We are talking about a fantasy game here not an actual recreation of Human history. Woman can and have fought but to 95% it was men and so Armor was designed for men if more Women had fought we would have quickly realized that they have a different anatomy for which we have to create fitting Armor and had done so."

Compromising the arced structure of a breast plate would render the breast plate worthless. It isn't the plate itself that is the main factor in terms of protection, it's the design. Yes steel helped a lot, but the arc of the breast plate and the hollow between the chest and the armor distributed the impacts over a much wider area of the armor so that the kinetic energy isn't absorbed by the fragile human inside the armor and also to prevent dents and penetrations from hurting said fragile human.

 

...god damn it I wanna play now, this is taking too long...

 

 

@masseffectman1

 

I'm just gonna dissect your post since I'm getting tired now...

 

"I brought this topic up with my wife and four of her female friends. They all came to an agreement that if a woman had relatively large sized breasts (C cup onwards) A woman with breasts like that would not be fighting in armor in the first place since you would have to exercise to gain muscle and lose body fat. And by doing so your big breasts, lovely as they might be, would disappear. I'm not saying this because I wanna be mean or sexist or anything. I'm saying this because the breasts are really nothing but big soft lumps of fat. And burning off body fat would not skip the chest area just because you like breasts. Not burning off the body fat would give you back pain, lower your stamina and when you were on your hands and knees on the battlefield, not able to lift your sword and shield because you ran out of energy because you're packing that extra weight in fat, give you death , then armour with indentations would certainly be more comfortable against a flat chest piece which would flatten and constrict. This is the opinion of five actual females. now ask them how they stand on the issue of arrows and blows directed towards the heart and not away from the chest. What their take is on breast plate structural design and blows being taken up by their flesh and sternum in-staid of distributed around the breast plate itself as it would have been had the armor been allowed to maintain it's arced design. Ask them if they think they could fight with a busted sternum. We know what history provided the few women in battle with, but let's not forget that ALL armour at that time was designed by men for men, of course there was no space for breasts. Joan of Arc's armor was designed for her and paid in full by Charles VII and STILL didn't have breast cups...

 

Fact is, i don't care what a male professor with vast knowledge and tons of facts backing what he says concerning this says, from a females perspective who has no experience or knowledge about this at all, concerning comfortability and looks which is completely and totally irrelevant when talking protection on the battlefield. I'd rather be in a real suit of armor that looked like s*** and was dunked in cow dung than look like a king and die when someone sneezed too hard , they would choose armour with a slight breast shape if they were a larger cup size and receive a cracked sternum or worse as thanks. Anyone saying it isn't realistic should really think hard about that comment, considering that they're talking about a game where dragons exist and anyone can shoot fireballs and sparks from their hands. so because there's dragons and magic armor should be designed based on xena/red sona? or, if you DO think hard on it, is it really kidn of nice with some logic and realism behind the armor? "

 

@ginnyfizz

that armor in that picture would most likely never have seen battle. important people wore that to look important for parades, meetings, public functions etc. When in battle they wore something else.

http://www.livrustkammaren.se/livrustkammaren/Redaktionellt/Global/Bilder/Basbilder/Torneringar/Burgundiska_22402.jpg

These are two REAL sets of armor from somewhere after 1610. They were made for the king Gustav II Adolf (right) and queen Maria Eleonora (left) of sweden to be used in the foot-tournament following their wedding. Notice how neither have breast cups nor abs/man-tits. and these are actual ROYAL suits of armor from a rich sweden at the beginning of the swedish empire (which came to contain a large chunk of europe). the reason is simple... they didn't want to get hurt and possibly die when taking part in the melee.

 

@elleonblanco

 

there actually WAS armor made of wood used at different times through out history. even against firearms. besides ebony in TES has nothing to do with ebony the wood. it shares name because of the fictional metal in TES being black just like the wood.

and for your rant part. we DID get over it. A mod was created HERE but people decided to start a s*** storm over it because we wanted realistic armor and not boobified fantasy xena armor and THEY are the reason for this whole thread. So direct your rant at the correct target because right now you're trying to tackle the old lady that just got her purse stolen in-staid of trying to catch the thief.

 

 

I'm sure I missed someone or something in this post but quite frankly it's too long and it's midnight and I have to get up for work in the morning so screw proof-reading.

 

 

TL;DR: I'm right, you're wrong. I'm going to bed.

Edited December 22, 2011 by Wolbryne

[ginnyfizz]

@Wolbryne

 

Thank you, I know very well what armour looks like. Please don't patronise me. If you had really taken the trouble to examine that photograph or read any of the rest of my posts you would have noticed several things.

 

- The picture is taken from the collection at the Royal Armouries in Leeds, W.Yorkshire, England, I have visited the place several times and also the collection at the Tower of London. That cuirass is from a complete set of Campanian armour from 345 BC and they would not have been wearing anything like a 17th century Swedish set.

- I have also pointed out several times that armour WITHOUT BOOBIE CUPS is perfectly capable of accommodating big knockers and that I have easily fitted my own E-cups into it when taking part in either (a) re-enactments and (b) activities requiring a contemporary form of body armour

 

I also dispute the assertion that female boobs inevitably disappear when you undertake strenuous training. In my youth I was a sprinter and long jumper, rowed for my college, rode a horse (well still do) and competed in archery. I always had boobs. The boobless female athletes that you see on the television must be doing some unusual training, is all I can say.

[Wolbryne]

@ginnyfizz

 

I did in no way intend to patronize you in my post and if that's how it came out, I apologize.

I simply wanted to make sure everyone that saw that picture knew that it was a ceremonial armor.

I also know that you've been arguing on our side of the argument and that's why I wasn't gonna comment on your post at all at first. but when I started commenting on that picture other stuff slipped in too. and I know what you've said about tits and armors before and I believe you. my comment about tits stands though. with all the training that it would involve, and even more so for a woman due to genetics, to fight in a suit of armor, use a shield and swing a pretty heavy sword , a woman would ave to look something in the lines of THIS. You can't really judge her cup size since it looks like she's got implants, but look at her body. maintaining a body like that would be pretty difficult if you at the same time should be able to maintain a big c+ cup. It would be like eating your cookie and still having it.

I'm not saying that you're lying. I'm simply saying that at that level of fitness your body fat index would be so low that breasts would be something that would be on your list for santa to bring you ;)

here's 4 examples of really good feemale 100meter sprinters:

Ivet

Gail

Merlene

Veronica

it isn't a coincident that they are pretty much flat.

 

But this is besides the point and don't really have anything to do with female armor since, as you say, tits of all sizes, makes and brands fit in to suits of armor.

 

Ps. I was gonna say something like "pics or it didn't happen" about your comment on your own cup size, but I won't since that might be over the top, at least on the nexus lol :P

[Khorak]

I also dispute the assertion that female boobs inevitably disappear when you undertake strenuous training. In my youth I was a sprinter and long jumper, rowed for my college, rode a horse (well still do) and competed in archery. I always had boobs. The boobless female athletes that you see on the television must be doing some unusual training, is all I can say.

 

You always had boobs because you weren't doing strenuous strength and muscular endurance training with the expectation of potentially hours of melee combat with a horde of veteran male soldiers whose job is to turn people like you into a can of dogfood. To compete directly with men in intensely physical pursuits like combat a woman has to go above and beyond in order to overcome the biological hurdle put in front of them. When your archery experience includes pulling at least eighty pounds on a straight limb bow with a heavy war arrow instead of a flight arrow, six times a minute, it'll be relevant. When you can sprint in eighty pounds of armour without counting padding and weaponry, then that might be relevant. When you can row a galley at ramming speed into some perfidious Persian invaders, your rowing might be something worth bringing up.

 

As it is, you've provided a pile of completely meaningless anecdotes; you're not performing relevant activities to the extent of being able to compete directly with men. Feel free to type 'Middleweight MMA fighter' into a Google image search, to see the kind of physique you need to be on equal terms with. Hell, go Welterweight. When you can step up with the strength and endurance to fight a guy like that....then we'll see how big your boobs are. Cristiane Santos is the top ranked female MMA fighter in the world....in fighting trim she loses her boobs to the extent that they'd be of little concern in steel or other rigid armours. And she'll still be completely obliterated by her male counterparts (also of note, male MMA weight classes reach a point over one hundred pounds heavier than the highest womens fighting weights, that's what a woman has to keep up with). Gina Carano has nice boobies, she's the female #3. Got beaten s***less by Santos though.

 

A women with naturally huge breasts might still have something left over after the kind of training required, but sure as hell the idea she'll need boobs hammered into her cuirass for any reason at all is ludicrous. As it stands, people have already been giving actual examples of women who ended up in plate armour, in support of an OP that began by asking an educated source. The only response to this has been, frankly, ignorance and anecdotes in defense of absolute silliness.

 

It's one thing for people to say that, yeah, it's bloody silly and childish to be doing something so tactlessly sexist and patriarchal as making all the womens armour have over the top sexualised features like freaking boobs added to them, but they like it and they'll be over here playing the game trying not to think too deeply about it thankyou-very-much. It's quite another when people try to defend it like it's somehow reasonable or a good idea in any form of reality. And you know what....why the hell doesn't it go both ways? Where's my colossal codpiece? The women all have cartoon f-cup breasts that are so solidly pert they need voluminous contoured cuirasses. That's the thing being strangely defended as totally reasonable. On the male side this should surely translate to a good foot of manly sausage that would inevitably require a grand extension in the trouser department. On every single man.

Edited December 23, 2011 by Khorak

[Reaper004]

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.

 

^ This. It's not a sexist statement at all; it's the truth. Men are more likely to be on the front-line, two of my five sisters are in the military and even they admit that every woman they've ever encountered that's a soldier says they want nothing to do with combat (even my sisters themselves admit they don't want to fight). Why they would join the army then, much less the infantry, I have no idea. There's nothing wrong with being afraid of combat, like the guy I'm quoting said however, men are just more able to overcome it. It's in their genetic make-up. Just like it's in a woman's genetic make up to be more tender towards their children. It's the same concept.

Edited December 23, 2011 by Reaper004