Plate armor isn’t exactly spandex, but it’s also not a tank you wear on your body.
And like, any male ranger/thief/whatever agility based class character is not going out in a metal speedo, so why exactly are female warrior/strength/heavy armor + weapons type characters in chainmail bikinis?
The agility defence is the official worst argument when it comes to fantasy armors.
And a little bit more on why the “women aren’t strong enough to wear armor” myth is just absurd.
Remember, in times of war they used to fit hundreds of soldiers in this stuff and expect them to fight all day with heavy weapons. Armor had to be light enough allow an “average” man with training to use it reliably, which means it’d be easily usable for the “average” woman with the same training.
People talking about practical armor in Red Sonja dont seem to realize its practical for her. The world she lives in looks rather warm so wearing full armor would burn her up and sap her energy, not mention restrict her movements and agility. It would be impractical to have her in full armor given her environment and fighting style; just like when Spider-Man had that armored suit that slowed him down…it made it harder for him to fight
A metal bikini is not an armor, cause it serves no protection. It’s just an uncomfortable bikini.
It does NOT lend any bonus to the character’s agility, quite the contrary, cause it’s just underwear made of metal: it’s cold, it’s heavy, it’s chafing, it’s pinching.
Without going into complicated discussion of the character and the origin story, the reason the original Red Sonja (not the current incarnation) can fight in that bikini is “divine protection”* (related to “a wizard did it”) combined with near suicidal recklessness.
The reason she doesn’t wear regular clothes is… the costume was designed in the 70s, became iconic and until recently people kept choosing nostalgia over making sense.
* Doesn’t it seem kind of sexist that the female rival to Conan needed divine magic to be his equal? Yes. Yes it does.
Ok so one of the stupid justifications for absurd female armour/costumes has is increased agility. But these costumes so often involve thigh high boots.
I’ve worn thigh high boots (and looked fantastic in them) and they do not make you more agile. Thigh high boots are nothing but pain. Pain wrapped around your knees.
Whenever someone questions the validity of the Thigh-high boots square in Female Armor Bingo, I’m going to refer back to this post.
A video made for the Museum of Cluny, and its “The Sword: Uses, Myths and Symbols” exhibit. It tries to dispel some of the beliefs that are still prevalent today about the weight and mobility of fighters in plate armor and show some of the techniques used in combat against armored opponents
I’m always pleased to see videos like this. It’s as if people won’t believe unless they’re shown (and there are always some who go “ah, yes, well, in aluminium stage armour it’s easy.”)
Well, the Museum Cluny video, like the Royal Armoury demo team, uses real steel armour: those two pictures at the start show the originals; the video uses reproductions because no curator will let someone take two exhibits from his museum and roll them around on flagstones. Mike Loades in the UK has been doing similar armour demonstrations for years, as has Tobias Capwell of the Wallace Collection. Eventually the old “clunky, immobile, in with a wrench, out with a can-opener” image of plate armour will go away – but I won’t hold my breath. (That shade of purple isn’t a good complexion anyway…)
Even the faster demonstrations of these combat techniques are still dialled back to about half speed. Try to visualise how much quicker and more brutal this would be if the two fighters meant business, when the first rule was Do It To Him As Quickly As Possible Before He Does It To You.
Writer and swordsman Guy Windsor writes about doing motion-capture work for a computer game; his completely authentic techniques couldn’t be used because they were so small, fast and economical. The game needed big swashing movements because the real thing looked unrealistic, too insignificant to be effective…
You won’t see a “killing fight” (full speed, full power, full intent) recreated very often, either on documentaries or in museum exhibitions, because it’s very, very dangerous for (when you think about it) obvious reasons. These techniques from 600-year-old fight manuals were how men in armour maimed and killed other men in armour – and since they’re the original material, not a re-interpretation after 600 years of being diluted down to sport-safe levels, the techniques will still maim and kill men in armour. Even a blunt “safe” sword is pointed enough (first demo on the video, 1:54-59) to go into a helmet’s eye-slot and through the skull inside…
But if you’re lucky enough to see a full-speed demo between fighters in real armour using wasters (wooden practice swords), be prepared to pick your jaw up from the floor. It is awesome. And also as scary as hell.
Comments on comments:
“Pretty much proof positive that the people who claim that skimpy female fantasy armor is for increased maneuverability don’t know what they’re talking about.”
They know exactly what they’re talking about. They want to see T&A on fantasy game and book covers, and since they don’t have the balls to be honest about it, this is their excuse.
“It amazes me that the old saws about Western armour and techniques are still going about, because surely two minutes’ thought would let you know that of course knights had to be able to get up off the ground… Europeans were wearing armour for centuries, why wouldn’t they develop techniques of fighting in it?”
It’s easier to laugh (do the same people laugh about samurai?) and repeat what “everyone knows about armour“ than it is to waste that two minutes thought. Thinking might reveal something to mess with set opinions, and that would be annoying…
“Biggest pet peeve: People commenting on the weight and shape of armour restricting mobility…”
As before – “everybody knows” that European armour is massive and clunky because that’s what “everybody knows.” God forbid they should ever apply the “if it was so useless then why was it used” logic to anything. Because then they might realise that what “everybody knows” is wrong.
I’m going off to (not) hold my breath for a while… 😛
I saw this video in the fascinating special exhibit at Cluny last time we were in Paris. So pleased to be able to have it on tap, because it was most excellent.
As previously mentioned, the most important factors in considering armor design for a character are:
What does it have to protect them against?
What do they have to be able to do?
What is available?
These suits are show casing some great armor made for a person who needs to protect themselves against swords and arrows, fight and lead troops on the battlefield and had access to a lot of money and an skilled armorer. Unsurprisingly, they are super practical for their intended purpose.
The argument that they might wanted to trade off protection for a little more speed doesn’t hold up because once these guys got into battle it was simply ridiculous to think they’d be able to keep track everywhere an attack might come from.
Basically if you want to survive a battle, you want to be as well protected as possible, and as that video shows: The upper limit to how well protected you can be and still move freely is pretty damn high!
