HOME | DD
katoyo β Knight
#knight
Published: 2016-03-03 09:29:22 +0000 UTC; Views: 7450; Favourites: 298; Downloads: 226
Redirect to original
Related content
Comments: 15
What is hilarious is Qsy and DieHard were both right. Mobility in armor was just as key as the protection it gave, as Diehard stated. However, Qsy stated correctly that chainmail would in fact be attached between the plates to both preserve movement and give protection, plus allow for breathability.
π: 0 β©: 0
Why are the boobs hanging out from under all that steel?
π: 0 β©: 1
Because she's not wearing armor in front of the chest, only above and below leaving the middle pectorals uncovered. It was very common to wear armor like that in order to have free shoulders movement.
π: 0 β©: 1
I'll assume you're joking
π: 0 β©: 1
Oh I see, you must be the tipical Skallagrim fanboy with no fucking idea of armors or any shit but thinks know everything because he watches some videos from a Youtuber.
What is depicted inthis picture is a common configuration of the Elizabethan period, where soldier usually only wears the Plackart (Abdomen piece i.pinimg.com/originals/ef/05/fβ¦ ) , and the Gorget(neck piecewww.ageofarmour.com/instock/goβ¦ ) . Ended lke thisΒ cdn6.bigcommerce.com/s-bq05k/pβ¦
The chestplate was omitted many times because most of the torso was already covered by the plackart and the gorget, and having the pectoral free allows much more movility. With a chestplate, even with a small one, you arms are locked into a Crab like position, forget about complex swordfight techniques.
Unlike what you millenials "Know it all but really Dont know shit", most warriors of all history prioritized movility over armor, to the point of going torso naked many times. The only reason for armors was for attacking in formations in an army, when you have to hold position and you can't move around and also have allies at your sides so you can't swing your weapons too much. For the rest of the times most warriors wore almost no armor.
Now, go read more history and less Youtube.
π: 0 β©: 2
First of all, if that was true (it's not) then it would not be complemented with just clothes, but with some flexible armor like mail or gambeson pieces. That's indeed what we find historically to protect joints while preserving mobility in, for example, a full plate harness of the Elizabethan era.
This brings us to the point that mobility was already a concern. Both archeological evidences and physical tests of reconstitutions show us that a plate harness' main source of restriction is in the way it restricts vision and breathing, not so much mobility on a short term basis. Of course you can't run a marathon in one, but it wouldn't stop you from jumping, jogging or bending at the waist and shoulders.
Which is actually a problem you'd get with your design, considering it's an underbust corset. The arm holes are not big enough for her to even cross her arms in front of her, let alone fight properly. This is why actual breastplates tend leave a lot of space for the arms to move around, and have to be complemented with either mobile plates (rondels) or patches of mail (gousset), usually both.
Your arguments that full chest armor wasn't used by individual warriors, but only in rigid formations, has no basis in history and is contradicted by every archeological evidence we have from Hastings to the Napoleonic wars. The only reason anyone would ever fight bare chested is when their only option would be a simple shirt, aka no armor at all. In that case removing the shirt reduce the risk of infections when wounded.
If you want to draw silly boob armor that's your right, but don't try to bullshit your way out of acknowledging it for what it is.
π: 0 β©: 1
Nobody said you can't jump, jog or bend on full plate. So your two first paragraphs are nothing but a Big ass Strawman. I only mentioned that they can't close their arms and they have them stuck into a Crab position.
I guess you think there's no physical evidence of that right?? Bad for you, there is :
www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcJiB6β¦
www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hlIUrβ¦
Look at them swing the weapons, Crab style. It doesn't matter how much space you leave around the shoulders, is physically impossible to articulate your arms properly with an obstacle in your sternum.
My desing?? What are you talking about?, I havent shown any desing only phothos of historical reproductions of real armors.
And you seem yo ignore that the most used armor of history is Cloth Armor. There's much more handicaps with armor than movility and weight. One of the biggest factors to consider is Breathability, even moder soldiers end removing part of their gear in order to Cool their bodies, imagine being inside a metal can that covers all you body. That's why most warriors, when going individually ended with Cloth armor.
π: 0 β©: 1
Sorry I thought you were the artist for a second and not some random person off the internet writing a diatribe about how cucks are ruining boob armor or something, completely unprompted. My point about jogging and running was all to show that plate armor does not in fact reduce your mobility. I'm also equally sorry for not really take seriously your 'evidence', that is one guy in a cheap reproduction armor barely moving, then explaining on the verge of a heart attack that this isn't even historically accurate. Like seriously he even repeats it.
Oh, and cloth armor is gambeson dumbass, it's incredibly hot.
π: 0 β©: 1
Boo hoo hoo, 100% Ad hominem, 0% arguments, Sjw-101. I guess you are done then, call me when you have something.
π: 0 β©: 1
It never really was an argument.
π: 0 β©: 0
I could say something, but I've read your signature and know how receptive you're likely to be. I'm guessing I'm around ten years older than you though.
π: 0 β©: 1
A.k.a. You dont have fucking idea of what to say so let's make a run for the exit.
You can only debate with someone that is receptive to believe you???, what's the point of the debate then??. I guess you only follow the Sjw religious Dogma "Listen and Believe", or you could be a creationist too, pretty much the same.
π: 0 β©: 1
You make a lot of assumptions on limited information.
π: 0 β©: 0
