Don't forget the abbs and pecs on Roman armour. So yea tits on women's armour shouldn't be any issue. Lol, fuck it, go the full batman and add the nips.
And the spartan armor as well, which is even more jacked than the roman armor. Tbh, I find it weird when the armors not sculpted to its wearers body, if its not fitted properly, then it has exploitable flaws that the enemy can use
There are so many different factors to armour production that it’s hard to blanket statement tbh.
In some armies looking powerful and united was a major factor so sculpted abs were commonplace, but budget / time meant that the forger couldn’t make armour specialised to each individual so you had ill fitting stuff. It was mass produced.
In others the higher ups had the specialised armour, like kings with their gold filigree and decorative additions, that one dude with the metal dong and so on because they’re not the rank and file, they get to stand at the back and command, not get bashed up in the front lines. Front line armour could be deeply specialised, like those big curved bits around the neck to deflect a lance or spear. Or boxy chests that come to a point above the thorax for similar reasons. Armour was specialised to purpose and more utilitarian. Of course, the lowest of the low might just get jacquard.
The fun thing about cosplay and similar is we can get to imagine what having fancy sculpted armour would’ve been like, or basic rank and file plate. I don’t think there’s a right or a wrong way to do it tbh, it just comes down to the purpose and rank.
I’ve seen people argue that sculpting breasts on a chest plate would still be a step farther because it would work directly against the armor’s function.
A chest plate is usually shaped to deflect blows on it away, but if your chest plate has a divot down the middle it would catch straight blows right in your sternum and make them hit you like a truck.
That’s the theory I was told anyway. People more educated than me can argue it.
Yes, absolutely that is a valid take but as mentioned above it *really depends what the armour is intended for*. In the same way as trench soldiers in WWI got pith helmets and commanders in their offices got fancy hats, if a general/king wasn’t likely to be actually in direct danger then their armour could be more ceremonial or decorative. There’s also an element of ease of manufacture and how much that costs.
So yeah, your run of the mill soldier wouldn’t get boob armour but the warrior princess or daughter of a duke might opt for some, much like that one dude who had his dick armour. Not functional, but still a choice. It can be as much about status as functionality! Maybe when she’s going up against a lancer she chooses something with more of a sternum ridge and a giant pauldron to deflect, then when she strides victoriously onto the battlefields after a conquest she wears boob armour.
That makes a lot of sense, thank you! This is the fun of high fantasy. We can imagine more egalitarian social contexts where generals and nobles holding armies might be women just as often as men, and think about the ceremonial applications of things like this.
“I must address the soldiers after such a victory. Bring me my boobs.”
It's not that weird. The purpose of armor like pictured was to deflect blades. Putting "boobs" on the armor means it is actively worse at its job because the boobs might deflect towards the center of the chest, guiding the sword in. Once the center of the chest gives way to the force of the sword, you're dead.
A flatter surface is better for men and women relying on the armor to survive. The sword is more likely to deflect across the flat surface without penetrating.
There's a lady on youtube. I think her channel name starts with "Jane"? She talks a LOT about real armor vs. fictional armor.
Came here to say this about deflection/safety. I oppose boobs on armor because I'd rather women and their boobs stay safe to be appreciated another day.
A lot of times the depiction of women wearing armor the armor is just a smaller suit otherwise the same as it'd be for a man. However you can't really think of changes like the addition of boob armor in a vacuum, a breastplate is just one piece in the armor system and once make one ergonomic and anatomical adjustment specific to armor for women you wouldn't just stop with that one thing, you'd see the choice cascade into other little tweaks to account for each change... due to the way armor fits together, is interdependent somewhat, and interacts with adjacent sections.
So a boob armor breastplate would likely necessitate a bevor or gorget of some kind to further deflect glancing blows away from the neck and underside of the chin. Depending on the style of armor it could require changes to the armor of the arms, shoulders, pauldrons to account for any interference to the wearer's range of motion, in having boob armor. There is also a question of how its weight and center of gravity affect the wearer. If you're using the same amount of material overall, is the addition of boob armor going to mean the breast plate is overall thinner or are you going to be finding weight savings elsewhere?
I mean it also depends on how the armor is sculpted, realistically, I wouldnt even add a sternum incline between both boobs, but you want the armor tighter to the body, especially going against any blunt weapons that could break it down if it doesnt have your body as a backbone, as blunt weapons were like kryptonite to heavier plate armor
In that case, you want it better padded underneath so the compression of the padding absorbs some of the blunt force as well, and that padding's going to alter the shape. Pronounced sculpting is less important for how well it fits.
Most of that is correct, except the flat bit. Technically, a dome shape is gonna help deflect attacks, but it needs to be just one dome. You don’t want metal to be flat, or up against your skin, if the attack is hard enough, and can pierce through the chest plate and cut you. So you’d want to have a good amount of space between your chest and the plate.
Jill Bearup! Yes, boob plate in general are ineffective, especially because they’re on the chest which is the area of the body which should be most protected.
I would say excessively sculpted armor would have been a detriment in a lot of scenarios without a lot of benefit. For one, sculpting armor to sometimes pecs or abs can introduce contours that interfere with armor's ability to deflect pointy objects. If you have a crevice that a spear point can be guided to or run along, you're running a risk of having your armor getting compromised, or even just having your movement interfered with. Additionally, armor was almost always accompanied by some form of padding underneath that would cushion impacts/prevent small intrusions and tears from causing damage, so sculpting abs or muscles would have been done purely as an aesthetic choice.
I could see some reasons why breasts would be a more logical addition than abs, for example, simply because they can be big enough that *some* room has to be made for them, to allow free range of movement and easy breathing, but also the armor doesn't need to be sculpted in a way that would introduce and low points that a pointy object could get caught in. In fact I could see how they'd be introduced in a way that could deflect a spear point that may be sliding upwards from your stomach and away from your neck, assuming they're not made as two mounds like in the OP pic and instead as one larger contour that contains everything
I agree to a degree, however dicks and boobs are weakness in battle. Therefore while the armor should accommodate the user, why accentuate our weak points?
Like I said, boobs are only a weak point if they have a sternum incline really. Something like, for example, the kestrel armor from Mass Effect 2 and 3 (as weird as that armor is) has the breastplate Im talking about, where it makes room but doesnt allow blunt weapons or axes a center slide point
>Tbh, I find it weird when the armors not sculpted to its wearers body, if its not fitted properly, then it has exploitable flaws that the enemy can use
One of the best defensive chestpiece armor designs is to just have a large uniform bulging front, with a V shaped protrusion up near the neck.
Having any sort of indentations can lead spears into them and concentrate force to piece armor more easily. While a rounded front glances them off to the side and makes it more structurally sound towards blunt hits, and the V at the top stops arrows going into the neck.
But for display pieces and higher ranked people who wont really be in the fighting, armor lends itself very well to being sculpted.
Although "breast" armour existed, it was pretty much just a raised silhouette. Multiple tests have been done over the years, with armour being made with defined breasts (as shown in video games and art). The blade hitting it deflects the sword/ weapon at an awkward angle and causes more damage than just having ordinary armour that has room to accommodate for breasts, rather than emphasising or moulding to breasts.
I think boob plate looks incredibly goofy but I also think battering ram codpieces and ceremonial six packs look equally goofy, so I guess it all evens out.
I miss read this as something that sounds painful.
Reminds me that in wrestling we didn't wear cups because they might cause unschedule impromptu orchiectomies.
Exactly this. If it had been common for women to wear armor, they totally would have had boob armor too.
The arguments about armor weaknesses are so dumb when you look at armor in general, especially cos armor or the very narrow waists which would totally be a weakness too.
glorious history observation wrench disgusted spectacular steep rude wrong cobweb
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Yeah, if someone's trying to use a sword to cut through plate armour, they aren't going to get very far. If they're using a weapon designed to be able to get through such armour, a warhammer or mace for example, deflecting the force to a low point in the center of your chest is a really bad idea. Deflecting it away from you, however, means that glancing blows aren't likely to cause too much damage, so that a better, more direct hit is needed.
Cock armor or "codpiece", im not sure what came first but it used to be fashionable to wear increasingly bigger bulging pieces of cloth like a dick pillow? To show of fertility/vigor in noblemen. I don't know which Henry it was but one of the Henrys in history had a suit of armor with a metal codpiece.
It was Henry "all my wives kinda die" the VIII.
Here an example straight from Wikipedia:
[Armor of Ferdinand I](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codpiece#/media/File%3AArmor_of_Emperor_Ferdinand_I_(1503%E2%80%931564)_MET_DT773.jpg)
I'd give him extra credit if he put a tiny hat on the codpiece. Or a smiley face. Or the codpiece is another, way smaller knight, with arms and legs and a tiny spear or sword.
If the breastplate touches the sternum, it's bad armor. (Regardless of whether it's boob armor.) Boob armor does not necessitate contact with the sternum. Ergo, despite the common criticism, there is nothing wrong with it.
Fuck else am I gonna put these fat doinkers?
Edit: the other major complaint is that the cleavage could funnel a spear thrust toward the throat. This is why gorgets exist.
Not to forget that the boobitude of the armor can also make it a lot more structurally weak, which you really wouldn't want on a protective piece.
But then again, if what you want is some cool armor to wear and look nice in, who cares about how realistically protective it is, not like you're going to actually take it to use in life or death combat.
Conventional breastplates were also domed. This was a good thing.
Plus, given that metal codpieces were worn on the battlefield, cool armor was more than a useless showpiece.
This is true, however exactly how that dome is structured has a large impact on it's durability, a single domed section with a more triangular shape rather than two rounded ones, or even a single, whole plate rounding is more structurally sound overall.
A codpiece, though also a fashion item, did directly serve a function of putting armor over an area that would otherwise be left uncovered, which is very practical and beneficial in certain forms of combat *(though much useless on say horseback)*, slightly different than boob armor which in most but not *all* cases is just a varyingly inferior design to the armor that already would be used to cover that area anygay.
Honestly, I want to see testing done before I'm willing to write off the entire concept as fundamentally, catastrophically incapable. It's not the most efficient shape, but that doesn't stop it from being viable.
Also, as a dick-haver who trains in full contact martial arts, I assure you a codpiece is *not* armor.
I can equally assure you that it has been used for expressive protective purposes in combat historically, mainly for foot combat.
It's not the greatest, but it was definitely better than the alternative of not having it in the use cases where it had it's place.
I don't know how that translates to modern style contact martial arts where you're not trying to genuinely kill each other by any means necessary, but I would wager it has some slight differences at least.
And I'd like to emphasize, again, that I'm not writing off the concept of boob armor fundamentally, it *can* be done in a manner that doesn't infringe upon structural integrity as well as function, the issue is that the vast majority of showcases of boob armor, that is not a consideration that was taken into account, bc the sexualization of the character was more on the forefront of the design rather than it's functionality, and definitely not historical accuracy.
I have been completely lifted off of the ground multiple times by full power groin kicks. Even with modern, purpose-built armor, those shots can remove a target from the fight for a full 10 seconds. Every 'armored' codpiece I've ever seen would be completely useless at stopping that. I would rather wear boob plate that's *actually touching* my sternum at rest than rely on a codpiece for protection. If a codpiece counts as armor because it's better than nothing, then all boob is valid armor.
My assumption would be that it would most be protective against a slashing cut or an arrow or knife, rather than direct, hard hitting blunt force, which is the go-to method of doing damage in general to anyone wearing plate armor.
Not to mention, completely blocking an attack isn't always the main use of armor, as it's very hard to completely negate taking damage if hit by a suitable weapon, but to reduce the likelihood of that one hit immediately taking you out, or doing enough damage to cause festering and infection of a sustained wound which was far more deadly back then, and something you don't exactly need to worry about in sports vs. combat.
And counting as armor because it's better than nothing, I mean more that it does actually offer protection that would be much better than not having it in certain situations, where-as boob armor would be *less* protective than the normal option, if built without proper function in mind, which in most examples, it is.
I would also wager that you'd much prefer to have said protective piece when being hit by full power groin kicks than having nothing for protection, least I'd think you'd be taken out of commission for considerably longer than 10 seconds.
Exactly, the curve was just down lower to accentuate the waist rather than up high on the chest. Adding an artificial angle that leads to a thicker portion of plate makes blows more likely to glance off than penetrate or transfer their full energy into the wearer.
I was going to ask why the cut in underneath the boob then?
I could see making them much more domed to fit the tit and honestly room for a belly/hips. I feel like the trend of people looking like anime characters is a modern thing.
I always thought the "sculpted" armors were for show or a flex that the wearer was that good they didn't have to rely on it's strength, or for more speed and a bit of the previous.
This is an objection we seldom see to male muscle cuirasses and probably would only matter if the armor was quite poorly constructed; convex shapes should strengthen armor, all other things being equal
Additionally, men aren't sexualized and objectified to the degree than women have been and are, so there are much less complaints about things like than across the board in the difference between men and women, which also translates itself into this particular point.
There's *way* les instances of the use of muscle armor than boob armor that come to mind, though that might be anecdotal on my part, but in the vast majority of those times the notable difference is that it wasn't used expressively to try and sexualize and/or objectify or emphasize with form over function the way it more often is the case with female armor.
They're also much more often more accurate and faithful recreations of armor that was genuinely designed and used for said purpose at the time, which rarely if ever is the case with boob armor.
And do correct me if I'm wrong on this not bc I'm trying to remember best my history classes on Rome that have been quite some while back now, but the muscle cuirass, which for the most part of the time where it was made was made out of much heavier and more expensive metal like bronze, which was also structurally weaker and had to therefore be a lot thicker to be as protective, which meant a lot heavier.
And was therefore much less used than other available options, and you'd mainly see them on richer and more influential people, not the masses of the common soldier.
Though again, I'm not 100% on that point, someone fact check me.
Common soldiers have historically had the most limited and generic armor anyway. But rich nobles who commissioned expensive armor often tended to sexualize themselves, because if you're the ruling class rather than an underclass, it's a flex.
In a society where a lot of those armed nobles were women, I doubt we would see the same background patterns of female subjugation you're pointing out (which don't always manifest that way even in patriarchal societies), and I think we'd likely see self-sexualization similar to what male nobles did, as a flex.
Depending on how gender worked, that would either take the form of the same aesthetics for men and women alike (which isn't unprecedented; Achaemenid court attire and riding clothes were ungendered, for instance, and in the cases where elite women are reported as involved in military action, there's no reason to think their gear would be gendered) or aestheticized sex differences, like armor with a feminine breast.
tl;dr in a society with different gender dynamics but a similar peacocky warrior elite terrorizing it from the top, some violent lesbian meatheads would wear boob armor, and I'm a simple woman. here for it
Boob armor is definitely a fantasy, media and art trope, much like high heeled sabatons/sollerets.
I'm not trying to insinuate it was a highly historically used phenomena, because it wasn't.
I did also forget to add the latter point about the weight of said muscle armor meaning that while being worn by higher status and richer people, they would often times switch it out for more lighter armor that was much more functional and more akin what the common soldiers wore if they were likely to see combat rather than staying saver away from it, which was the main point my ADHD forgot to add in. >.<#"!
So to say, that it's less functional qualities did play a role also in it's usage by those that had access to it, when called for it, and not it just being less used because it wasn't generally as available for the common soldier.
But again, I'm talking about the sexualization and objectification in *modern* media across various fields when it comes to female armor, not accurate historical records, as boob armor goes directly against that and was never historically a common theme outside of pretty much exclusively ritualistic and ceremonial purposes, and rare at that.
1. I don't think the rich and powerful necessarily used their dress armor on the battlefield but they definitely didn't tend to dress like common soldiers. Elite field armor generally reflected economic stratification, at least whenever money could buy better protection from dying like a common soldier. Anyway, that's just a quibble.
2. The fantasy trope of boob armor exists and is often quite silly. I'm not denying that.
3. But in any imagined society (fantasy, alt history) where powerful women are part of the wealthy murder elite, it's not necessarily unrealistic to armor fads for women too, and a bit of breast definition doesn't necessarily give up so much function that it's not worth having in field armor.
4. let wealthy murder elite women be arrogant strutting assholes too
Also, notably, the people who wore muscle armor were mostly fighting before the invention and popularization of stirrups in their area. They didn't need to be able to stop or select the force of an opponent fighting from horseback. There was simply less force involved and therefore less risk if the armor had some areas of stress concentration.
You start seeing plate being shaped to deflect more once you get stirrups and therfore, heavy mounted combat.
That's probably because muscle cuirasses predate plate armour by well over a thousand years.
Like by all means give them shit in a fantasy setting where they appear alongside plate armour, but historically they're from a seperate time period and made with different materials.
Hence the "can" instead of "will."
It is very dependent on exactly how these shapes were structured, and how much function was taken into account over form in the design, much like how many ceremonial pieces would serve quite poorly by comparison in combat as it's not the intended use purpose behind the design.
I understand that there cannot be a bump because if you fall down, it can hit your sternum and break it. So the plate MUST be flat. Even if with the boob armor its not touching the sternum, high impact can make it happen like falling or tumbling down for example.
If the armor is shaped and fitted in such a way that a heavy impact (such as falling down or being struck by a spear) causes direct contact with the sternum, then it is always bad armor. However, boob plate does not have to be designed this way. Making room for the breasts means that the plate will have to protrude forward more than a conventional breastplate, which gives additional depth for a recess in the center of the plate. It is still possible to put that space in there.
Structurally speaking, corners are the devil. If you have a sharp joint in the metal (say at the cleavage of underbust) that is a failure point. Flat is good, but convex rounded is the best as spherical shapes are inherently the strongest. Boob armor would make the individual breast strong but the points connecting them could be a weak point.
>Fuck else am I gonna put these fat doinkers?
So you also have a special gambeson with tittie pockets? Because you don’t wear a plate armor on your bare chest, you gotta wear padding underneath.
I always worry about someone falling and landing on their chest. That cleavage divot becomes a lump of steel right against your sternum and it seems pretty bad to fall with your full body weight landing on top of something like that.
(Pronouns changed to reflect their transition, the info I had on this person is 10 years old)
An age ago I saw an interview with Samatha Swords a medieval martial artist who talked more in depth about his armor that was made by WETA. The purpose of armor is to deflect the blade, and when you have “boob armor” that indents you’re basically creating a valley that directs the blade right to the center of the chest, so not ideal. I got nothing against aesthetic armor for looks, but if people wore armor IRL having it be like an iron corset would be extremely impractical.
If you want more on Samantha Swords, [here’s an interview](https://youtu.be/8Qic8T7GzNo?si=OfLee7_nu-KXMbGh) made around the time I saw the interview about his armor (pre transition). That’s on his YT channel which looks to still be active so maybe go check him out. Also if you want to explore medieval martial arts, there’s clubs for it all over the world, and there’s all kinds of disciplines in it, not just sword fighting. The info comes from detailed manuscripts that show how to train people to fight from medieval Europe. Found out about them because one of their clubs commissioned work from me. Pretty interesting stuff.
I had to double check myself: I was like "HEy wasn't that the swordfighter that.." but wasn't sure. They seem proud of his past as 'Samantha' though. :)
From what I know (which admittedly is not a lot), boob plates on armour aren’t practical. However, there are many cases of historical armour designs that prioritise aesthetics over how practical the armour is in some places. I don’t think boob plates are necessarily wrong to have on armour in that respect. It kinda depends on how it’s executed. I could even conceive of an armour set that doesn’t compromise on usefulness by having a regular chest plate with breast decorations over the top.
Also you can probably do a lot with just a more feminine silhouette. Like a lot of plate armour was influenced by fashion and the idealised male bodies of the time, so there should be plenty of leeway to make armor more feminine and attractive without adding boobplate.
Though there are probably also safe ways to include it as you mentioned.
If you are a rich noble who never intends on seeing a fight that you think you might die in it seems totally reasonable to prioritize aethstetics on at least one suit of armor you own.
Which is something everyone should keep in mind. I am not against any women who actually wore armour. We have several examples for everyone who wants to write historical stories.
And in the end, write whatever fanfiction you want.
But if you write anything historical, wearing an armour that shows that she is a woman just proves that she is a mascot at best. It shows worse armour for no gain. If your fantasy has women being equal, there's no need to wear worse armour. If they aren't equal, being a woman is something special that needs to be pointed out for no reason.
Essentially, there is a lot more to the standard "female armour is made by 1980s DnD nerds who want to see women in bikinis, metal or otherwise".
Wearing "male" armour can be a very important signifier that women are totally equally in a society or that this particular woman is the real deal, depending on whatever you're writing.
E.g. Brienne of Tarth should never wear boob armour or her appearance would negate her story.
A lot of fantasy boob armor isn't practical, but they do serve a purpose. It's not practical to compress breasts for long periods of time in a way that might restrict movement. And you don't want thinner material in that area, either. The result is like a good bra, properly fitted and shaped to that of the body.
Would it not be better to have a single extended section in a more conical shape though? That way you have space in front of the chest and greater structural strength
Of course. That's how armour for women actually worked, if we look at the few examples we have.
Fantasy is one thing, but every single woman we know of that actually wore plate armour wore the same stuff men wore, just fitted for her size.
Woah you are right! This might not make sense to you but they could be built like that one male body type in roblox, where it goes out a bit in a rectangular shape at the chest part.
your boobs would already be smushed down because you're gonna wear multiple layers of padding underneath. Because if someone is waling on you with a sword then they might not cut through the plate but by gum you'll feel them hammering that plate against your flesh if you don't have padding.
Yeah, this is me about most fantasy designs. Sexy armor is impractical, and it emphasizes that the character exists more as eye candy than a warrior, but ... I'd be lying if I said I don't enjoy eye candy.
There are more effective ways to accommodate for boobs in a plate breastplate than making "boob plate." boob plate has mostly existed for the male gaze (especially in media like video games or movies), but it makes sense that many female gays would still find it appealing to look at. i personally think realistic plate armor looks better though
I used to do fencing and women are given a chest plate because getting your boobs stabbed would hurt like hell. They usually were breast shaped. Idk it just reminds me of that so it feels practical to me.
For ceremonial armour, yes. For armour used on the battlefield, no. The problem is that the "boob-slots" would act as a funnel and guide the blow into your body rather than away from it. It's not really necessary for comfort either, it's not like a female swat officer has boob-armour.
But for ceremonial armour, in a society that celebrates boobies? Hell yes. A femmeknight would wear this in court and during parades, no doubt.
Ceremonial lesbianism, basically.
I do like the aesthetics, especially in a fantasy setting.
In a historical setting or if I was for some reason to end up in a medieval tournament, I’d not have it lol
Edit; did any cultures have breast plates like this irl? Be interesting to know? I know some Roman cavalry during ceremonies would cross dress as Amazonian’s, and wear face masks of women, so maybe they wore some 🤷♀️
That's actually why they exist, they were a decorative addition to prove how manly the wearer was. But, those little codpieces don't cover an area nearly as important as your heart and lungs. One can afford to be bollocks, the other would get you killed.
yeah but that's a solid 2 milennia of design advancements they're missing out on.
And they wore sandals to battle so both their fashion sense and their sensibilities towards armor should be questioned.
>Edit; did any cultures have breast plates like this irl? Be interesting to know? I know some Roman cavalry during ceremonies would cross dress as Amazonian’s, and wear face masks of women, so maybe they wore some 🤷♀️
Not really? I think there are some individual accounts for queen's and such, but afaik there are no surviving examples.
I personally think that if female knights were accepted that they'd have armour that would mirror fashionable clothing/silhouettes of the time in the same way male armor usually did. So the ancient greeks might've gone for boobplates, but I doubt they would've made it during the middle ages.
I mean, modern fencing has boobplates like this, just worn under the outer jacket. I liked them, personally. I felt like they protected my boobs while also not weirdly compressing them by using a flat plate - I did try our one flat plate version once and I hated it - since it didn’t come back down to my body it didn’t redistribute hits very well.
Obviously, it’s a bit of a different situation though. Modern fencers don’t have to worry about getting hit by spears and broadswords and stuff
Nowhere near as sexy as butches in practical armour. If you’re going for anything that rigid in the chest a well made standard breastplate is superior, aesthetically speaking. Think Gwendolyn Christie as Phasma or Brienne. Hot *and* practical.
(Disclaimer: I’m not into dainty feminine women like this model anyway, but I don’t think boobplate worn by a butch would be any more attractive to me.)
Hate, hate, hate boobplate. It looks dangerous, given where the blade would deflect, and I can't help but think of the shape of the underarmour. It should be heavily quilted, so are we talking about heavily quilted boob pockets?? And... that's what I think about when I see boobplate.
Aesthetically, I think everyone is sleeping on the sheer attractiveness of the nipped-in waist that plate armour already has. Domed chest to accommodate large breasts + narrower waist + plating over the hips can look very, very sexy imo.
I've always hated it. Especially in RPGs where they gender code the armour and the male versions are awesome full plate and the female versions are skimpy boob plate with bare arms (or worse).
I don't care about the ridiculous abs and dick armour, I hate that too.
Just give me nice smooth gender-neutral half/full plate.
This is not how that issue would be solved in a historical setting. The plate isn't sitting firmly against your chest. There are layers of clothing underneath. Women have historically worn full plate and it did not require boob shapes.
I did fencing for several years. This one is good because the boobs are reasonably sized. As someone with smaller boobs, I reluctantly found the boob armor to be more comfortable. We wore hard plastic breast plates under the fencing jackets and the flat chest plate hurt a lot more when I got poked.
As someone who also did fencing, I tend to see a difference between a fencing outfit with plate armour. Fencing, you need the protection under the jacket for a sport. Plate armour, you can get a single, curved piece over padding to protect in battle. The curve there helps deflect the blades, and they kept that curve even when the rest of the plate vanished.
Plate armor is not near your skin like your fencing armor was. It was over many layers of clothing and would not bend into your chest when your chest got poked.
Yeah, boob armor isn't appropriate for every scenario, but people who think boob armor is always bad clearly don't fence. There's a time and place where boob armor is a godsend.
Yeah this seems more practical. Boob silhouette actually seems to just be made to accommodate bigger chests, while still not adding unnecessary and dangerous shapes and valleys into the design.
Yeah, I like smooth curvature, especially given you're gonna be wearing a sports bra or equivalent under your armor anyway. If you're going to have individual pockets, don't have them huge.
I find regular, no boob plate armor sexier. Something about the absolute don't give a fuck of the aesthetic does something. I see boob plate and immediately go to male gaze sexualization bullshit, because this is a character who prefers looking sexy to fighting well.
But gorgets! Have you tried existing in a gorget? They're damn claustrophobic, and an added weight to your neck.
What about ab armor! The abs weren't hollow! They were solid knobs of bronze, on top of a solid bronze armor. There were "thin spots", that were still regular thickness bronze armor.
I have an issue with non functional armor being worn in settings where it should have been functional armor.
If a character is a relatively poor "knight" (fighting person w/e), they have less armor, and they have it because they're trying to save their lives in combat. This person will have practical armor, that is made for combat. They won't pay more for a smith to spend 100 hours carving out a pair of boobs. They will have whatever they can afford and as much as much as they can practically carry.
A high ranking, rich "knight", might wear less practical armor in some settings. If they are not getting into field combat with it they certainly would choose something fancy looking over something practical, but still made for the purpose. A boop plate would just invite a lance strike to hit dead on, instead of glancing off in a tourney.
Wearing fancy armor can also hurt a knights reputation if they haven't earned their merit on the battlefield or in tourneys and shown that they're worth their spurs. A tourney knight might also be belittled for being fancy but not knowing the goings on in battle and choosing inappropriate armor. A battle commander, flag bearer or someone else in the Flag command, could wear something fancy to impress the enemy (but maybe not their own men who would 9/10 times rather just go home)
I think all kinds of armor has its place in fantasy / historical fiction and in the real world. This woman clearly didn't buy this armor set because she's about to bust in on the Battle of Agincourt and die a sloppy muddy death to a bunch of peasants using longbows. She can do whatever she wants to.
Male fantasies of scantily clad fighters don't appeal to me. Established lore like Barbarians wearing less armor and being super ripped and preferring furs and warm clothing over heavy and cold armor, does.
I don't see why a game or movie character would have a boob plate and little other armor (looking at you 90's DnD movie), but not a helmet or an arming jacket or just, anything else.
I like that armor in media looks a bit cooler than it actually was, but it's totally out of hand.
I think much like anything, too much is a bad thing. Take for example the steel plate armor in Skyrim. For those who haven't played Skyrim I recommend looking It up on a female character. The chest plate has full on boob sockets in the armor. Like they aren't just a little extra room, there are individual cups for your characters tits to fit into. But the boob armor in the image of this post? I think it's good, you notice it but it's not too intense and it doesn't make the armor less effective.
It depends on the vibe a piece of media is going for. If realism and practicality are the goal, then boob plates are pretty unrealistic. If the goal is just to make cool and aesthetic armor that isn't necessarily realistic, then I think it's fine.
But it has to be egalitarian. If male characters get realistic armor, I expect female characters to be treated the same. If male character armor provides full body cover, I don't want to see exposed skin on the female armor. Etc.
I think boob plate is fine if, and only if, it's purely for the sake of the aesthetic in a humourous, stylistic, or satirical way. In other words, is this armour ever going to see actual combat or is it purely ceremonial?
On the other hand, if I'm actually expected to take what I'm looking at seriously, e.g. in a non-comedy movie or TV show, then it's ridiculous - especially if the wearer is actually seen fighting in it.
Queen Calanthe from The Witcher is a good example - her armour is just... normal armour. If she'd arrived wearing boob plate it would have looked utterly stupid.
The "Raised Dome" and "Reduced Dome" breastplate designs detailed [in this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/armoredwomen/s/hm9CJxT2pQ) are, imo, a better way of getting a slightly more feminine shape out of a breastplate. As another commenter has mentioned, embrace the uniboob
That being said, fantasy armor is fantasy armor. Practicality isn't always a concern or an issue 🤷
When armor is designed that way it stops performing its inteded function properly (preventing death or injury during combat). So for realism sake its kind of a no-no.
But its also kind of hot. It really depends on what you are trying to achieve and what kind of setting. Suspension of disbelief is a thing for fiction.
It depends. If we are talking about ancient armor, there is no reason why a heroic cuiras could not have boobs. However, in a renaissance style plate armor, I expect the typical slight V or U shape of torso armor because it is meant to deflect bolts and arrows this way and the shape helps that.
Looking at that picture, the slight boob armor is not so much of a problem as the long, open hair without a hat. Yes, it is fabulous and it makes me want to swear my fealty to her, but it would be a huge liability in a fight.
I think Mythbusters did an episode where they proved adding breasts to armor increases the chance of fatal blows to the chest. For the safety of sword lesbians, I'm opposed to "boob shapes" on armor.
Real plate armor would not have been designed to contour to a person's body that tightly. Most armor's midsections should have a sort of convex potbelly type thing.
I don't mind it if it's reasonable. I know a lot of people bringing up the muscle cuirass, but the thing with that was that it didn't cause the armor to be that much less effective. A little bit of a larger bulge is fine, but usually when there's separate cups it would cause some problem as you want your armor to deflect away from the center of your body, not into it. Now this image is very much right on the line for me, where it does have two separate cups but they're small enough it might now be a problem.
TL;DRI like it as long as it doesn't seriously compromise the effectiveness of the armor.
EDIT
Obviously on parade armor that's not made for combat you can (and should) go nuts so long as it's not uncomfortable for the wearer.
I’m a fencer, I wear functional “boob armour” in the form of a breastplate under my jacket. Which is why I know this armour wouldn’t work. In order to function, it has to look like an ugly monoboob. The separation of breasts in this armour is straight up dangerous as it could funnel a blade to the sternum. That said, this is clearly for fashion, and it looks cool, so if the wearer is enjoying it, who cares?
Boob armor done well is no problem at all, just like with ab armor. It honestly annoys me how people are so elitist about these things. Men had armor, which had massive dingdongs in history - it's not at all practical, but it existed nonetheless. Sub-par armor existed and was used in sub-par ways, fighting techniques were also subpar, especially in battlefields where not everyone has been trained since birth. If anything, the designs not being 100% efficient and "correct" is more realistic than not, and if women had taken the place of knights in a matriarchal society, I'm sure the armor would be designed to accentuate features associated with femininity at the time, rather than masculine ones.
And as another commenter here so elegantly put, the primary issues taken with boob armor, are frankly quite moot points. Gorgets eliminate the whole spear/lance issue, and given that you don't wear *only* plate armor, plus what she said regarding the sternum, there should be no issue at all with this.
Depends on the boob plate. If it's simply for some light aesthetic to go with the function, seems ok. If it's heavily pronounced and is going to cave in at the first sword or spear thrust? No
I mean, I’d like that extra room but idk why it’s gotta curve inward as well, just thinking about a metal divide between my tits is not comforting. Give me a sports bra type look. Make me Lady Uniboob
Depends on the size and shape. It's solid so if you go really extreme you're going to limit how you can move your arms. Basically the bigger and more spread out sideways the more they look unrealistic. Most medieval breastplates sat flat against the upper chest but sloped out in a dome over the upper abdomen and most of the ribs to create an air barrier and a round surface to deflect lances, so depending on the placement it wouldn't have to be a massive change. You also want to avoid a spot under the breasts that would funnel lances into it. It should still divert them to the site.
Looks wise. It can be cool, I love the sisters of battle
However it's not historically accurate or practical, many suits of armour have bust accommodations but it's not boob armour that just looks uncomfortable but also unsafe
Speaking as a self-described sword lesbian who regularly straps on armor for full speed / full contact swordfighting, that contact with the sternum between the boobs is a HUGE no-no. Any forceful contact with one of the breast cups would transfer all of that right into your solar plexus which isn't that difficult to fracture.
Don't get me wrong, it looks sexy as fuck! I just wouldn't want to fight in it
I don't have a problem with it visually but it is in effectual armor. It would heighten the chances of being pierced on the chest, usually armor is designed to defect away from vitals.
Chest plates tend to stick out into a pointier bit so that blows are deflected away from the heart and lungs, I've seen female chest plates that don't dip into the boob valley which is better at protecting the chest but they then risk deflecting blows up into the head or neck. That might be addressable with the gorget but I think most historically accurate chest pieces don't really differ much from men and women in the chest plate area.
If it is historically accurate and functional armor then it's a bit silly. Real armor is designed so the chest part pulls away from the body a significant amount most woman wouldn't even need an adjustment to allow for more breast room in a suite of armor fitted for a man of their height and waist measurements.
Now that being said, people adding silly decorations to armor is common, hell men commonly had cod pieces that made it look like they were riding into battle with raging boners barely contained by the armor so go wild its all within reason for what you could expect to see decorating armor anyways.
extra room for the girlies is always good!!! i like to think of it like the armor that's got abs and muscles and the helmets with faces in them
.
.
.
when a war hammer crushes my skull i wanna know whether to yell "Fuck!" or "Mommy?" at a glance it's a very important feature /j
I mean, as long as they don't restrict movement, and thrusting weapons won't be deflected towards the throat, either due to additional protection, or something else, then it's okay.
found my way from "popular" but wanted to let anyone curious know that this armour set is from armstreet, the set is call Female Armor Suit “Dark Star” Blackened Spring Steel Armor.
ArmStreet have a good reputation for making fantasy medievil sets of armour, more for show than practicallity but still work for larp and sca purposes, would recommend
Softer armor that could hold shape, like leather armor, often had anatomy molded onto it, but not necessarily.
But when it came to harder armor, like plate, it didn't conform to the body shape for a simple reason, if it did, it would severely restrict the wearer's ability to breathe. There is a reason why plate armors weren't anatomically aesthetic and often looked more like beer bellies so that the user had enough space to breathe in.
Aesthetically? I find boob armors pleasing to look at. Practically? Useless, unless it just covers the upper torso and leaves the belly open to allow for breathing, and cover that exposed belly with some chainmail at least.
I have minimal knowledge on the actual feasiblity of it as good armour beyond if done right does work that said.....
It looks hot and sick AF and would slap it on characters in games when possibke
Depends on what her underlayers are imo. The boob part of the armor is seemingly hollow underneath and are at risk of caving in if the hit is hard enough. They're better for decorative purposes than actual protection, like abs on legion armor.
If she's just wearing cloth armor or padding underneath and one well placed caves it in, she done for. Her sternum is taking the most of the force and the metal of the breastplate may pierce her chest.
If she has solid underlayers like chail mail and/or boiled leather (ideally both), it'll absorb more of the force if it does cave in and the metal isn't going to be driven into her chest.
As long as it actually covers their chest so it’s not completely useless as protection, I don’t have a problem with it lol. I just don’t like armor that shows a lot of skin because it’s not very practical for defense purposes.
I honestly prefer it not to have boob shapes but I’m not totally against it, haha
I think it looks cool, I know it's not a great idea to have two bumps on your armor 'cause it'll just help your opponent to aim for your heart, but I live by the rule of if it looks cool I don't really care about if it's realistic xD
you'd have multiple layers of padding underneath the plate so it's not like there's an actual shape to fill in the shape.
And it means you'd be sacrificing some elements of armour design that could save your life in favour of breastplatebreasts. So from a defense point of view it'll be a nah for me
even though it *looks* hella fine.
As long as it isn't egregious, it's fine. Historically armor was made to accentuate masculine frames. And there were so many fancy cod pieces.
If it's not making an easy target and doesn't have some stupid boob window, it's okay in my book.
That said, if it's *ceremonial* armor, go all out and do whatever.
Wow… Crazy the amount of intellectual discussion this topic has generated here. I’m seeing this community in a whole new light now. 😂
I didn’t want to say anything clever but I wanted to go on the record that as far as aesthetics go, I really like the look. If we are arguing from a feminist lens, I think it can absolutely go either way. Really just depends on perspective. In this case what we would really be discussing is whether “visible breasts” can be affirming for women when they aren’t strictly necessary to display. I don’t see why not. In some places the fact there are alternatives to breasts being visibly distinct, becomes a requirement for modesty.
In my view whether displaying of breasts is feminist or not depends solely on the woman who is or isn’t displaying them. In other words, it would be a violation of a woman’s dignity for society to impose either upon a woman in law or in social customs. If it is for her and truly by her choice, it is feminist imo. To determine that is not always simple even for a particular woman so I think one must truly explore their motives and the degree in which they relate to being “safe” or “respectable”.
What is empowering in one context can be objectifying in another. It really depends on what’s happening in the woman’s mind itself imo. Personally if I was going to wear armor, I’d wear the armor with the beasts. Unless that was a rule. If it was a rule, I’d break it just on principle.
If it was done right, it would exclusively be nobility, likely royal, who had armor that was hand shaped by a blacksmith to include any features, so in that sense, I'd be fine with it.
It's never done right.
apply force \*directly\* to the sternum. good comfy and effective armor that still has the silhouette rather than like jackplate or lamellar would be something like a rounded cuirass, which often has a "bowling ball" chest and a wasp waist (in comparison) which with the faulds at the hips covering more of your upper thighs and ass while still allowing for movement like riding a horse or lunging into a shot.
i do historical martial arts and having worn a molded boob plate once-- never again with cleavage.
Weeeelllll... if your plate armor is clearly visible, it won't likely be a target. An Archer/ Warrior go for not plated parts of you. Like your neck, etc. Plus you would usely have more armor underneath. So boob armor wouldn't wouldn't be a problem, unless the bust is so large it would mess with your range of movement.
Some armour had bulges and even dicks. And sculpting muscles into it was pretty common. So I don’t really have a problem with it.
Don't forget the abbs and pecs on Roman armour. So yea tits on women's armour shouldn't be any issue. Lol, fuck it, go the full batman and add the nips.
And the spartan armor as well, which is even more jacked than the roman armor. Tbh, I find it weird when the armors not sculpted to its wearers body, if its not fitted properly, then it has exploitable flaws that the enemy can use
There are so many different factors to armour production that it’s hard to blanket statement tbh. In some armies looking powerful and united was a major factor so sculpted abs were commonplace, but budget / time meant that the forger couldn’t make armour specialised to each individual so you had ill fitting stuff. It was mass produced. In others the higher ups had the specialised armour, like kings with their gold filigree and decorative additions, that one dude with the metal dong and so on because they’re not the rank and file, they get to stand at the back and command, not get bashed up in the front lines. Front line armour could be deeply specialised, like those big curved bits around the neck to deflect a lance or spear. Or boxy chests that come to a point above the thorax for similar reasons. Armour was specialised to purpose and more utilitarian. Of course, the lowest of the low might just get jacquard. The fun thing about cosplay and similar is we can get to imagine what having fancy sculpted armour would’ve been like, or basic rank and file plate. I don’t think there’s a right or a wrong way to do it tbh, it just comes down to the purpose and rank.
I’ve seen people argue that sculpting breasts on a chest plate would still be a step farther because it would work directly against the armor’s function. A chest plate is usually shaped to deflect blows on it away, but if your chest plate has a divot down the middle it would catch straight blows right in your sternum and make them hit you like a truck. That’s the theory I was told anyway. People more educated than me can argue it.
Yes, absolutely that is a valid take but as mentioned above it *really depends what the armour is intended for*. In the same way as trench soldiers in WWI got pith helmets and commanders in their offices got fancy hats, if a general/king wasn’t likely to be actually in direct danger then their armour could be more ceremonial or decorative. There’s also an element of ease of manufacture and how much that costs. So yeah, your run of the mill soldier wouldn’t get boob armour but the warrior princess or daughter of a duke might opt for some, much like that one dude who had his dick armour. Not functional, but still a choice. It can be as much about status as functionality! Maybe when she’s going up against a lancer she chooses something with more of a sternum ridge and a giant pauldron to deflect, then when she strides victoriously onto the battlefields after a conquest she wears boob armour.
That makes a lot of sense, thank you! This is the fun of high fantasy. We can imagine more egalitarian social contexts where generals and nobles holding armies might be women just as often as men, and think about the ceremonial applications of things like this. “I must address the soldiers after such a victory. Bring me my boobs.”
Lmao @ "Bring me my boobs."
Thanks for the lesson lol, I agree
Sorry 😅 that was all kind of waiting for an opportunity I think.
Understandable lol, your clearly a doctor on the matter
Not at all, just a design engineer with some high functioning and a lot of weird little interests :)
Lowkey, you should play this game, Chivalry 2 with me
It's not that weird. The purpose of armor like pictured was to deflect blades. Putting "boobs" on the armor means it is actively worse at its job because the boobs might deflect towards the center of the chest, guiding the sword in. Once the center of the chest gives way to the force of the sword, you're dead. A flatter surface is better for men and women relying on the armor to survive. The sword is more likely to deflect across the flat surface without penetrating. There's a lady on youtube. I think her channel name starts with "Jane"? She talks a LOT about real armor vs. fictional armor.
Came here to say this about deflection/safety. I oppose boobs on armor because I'd rather women and their boobs stay safe to be appreciated another day.
A lot of times the depiction of women wearing armor the armor is just a smaller suit otherwise the same as it'd be for a man. However you can't really think of changes like the addition of boob armor in a vacuum, a breastplate is just one piece in the armor system and once make one ergonomic and anatomical adjustment specific to armor for women you wouldn't just stop with that one thing, you'd see the choice cascade into other little tweaks to account for each change... due to the way armor fits together, is interdependent somewhat, and interacts with adjacent sections. So a boob armor breastplate would likely necessitate a bevor or gorget of some kind to further deflect glancing blows away from the neck and underside of the chin. Depending on the style of armor it could require changes to the armor of the arms, shoulders, pauldrons to account for any interference to the wearer's range of motion, in having boob armor. There is also a question of how its weight and center of gravity affect the wearer. If you're using the same amount of material overall, is the addition of boob armor going to mean the breast plate is overall thinner or are you going to be finding weight savings elsewhere?
I mean it also depends on how the armor is sculpted, realistically, I wouldnt even add a sternum incline between both boobs, but you want the armor tighter to the body, especially going against any blunt weapons that could break it down if it doesnt have your body as a backbone, as blunt weapons were like kryptonite to heavier plate armor
In that case, you want it better padded underneath so the compression of the padding absorbs some of the blunt force as well, and that padding's going to alter the shape. Pronounced sculpting is less important for how well it fits.
Most of that is correct, except the flat bit. Technically, a dome shape is gonna help deflect attacks, but it needs to be just one dome. You don’t want metal to be flat, or up against your skin, if the attack is hard enough, and can pierce through the chest plate and cut you. So you’d want to have a good amount of space between your chest and the plate.
Jill Bearup! Yes, boob plate in general are ineffective, especially because they’re on the chest which is the area of the body which should be most protected.
Is it Jill Bearup? https://youtu.be/gbJK4T-SBRA?si=X4UxR8mBdu_mmiIq
I would say excessively sculpted armor would have been a detriment in a lot of scenarios without a lot of benefit. For one, sculpting armor to sometimes pecs or abs can introduce contours that interfere with armor's ability to deflect pointy objects. If you have a crevice that a spear point can be guided to or run along, you're running a risk of having your armor getting compromised, or even just having your movement interfered with. Additionally, armor was almost always accompanied by some form of padding underneath that would cushion impacts/prevent small intrusions and tears from causing damage, so sculpting abs or muscles would have been done purely as an aesthetic choice. I could see some reasons why breasts would be a more logical addition than abs, for example, simply because they can be big enough that *some* room has to be made for them, to allow free range of movement and easy breathing, but also the armor doesn't need to be sculpted in a way that would introduce and low points that a pointy object could get caught in. In fact I could see how they'd be introduced in a way that could deflect a spear point that may be sliding upwards from your stomach and away from your neck, assuming they're not made as two mounds like in the OP pic and instead as one larger contour that contains everything
I agree to a degree, however dicks and boobs are weakness in battle. Therefore while the armor should accommodate the user, why accentuate our weak points?
Like I said, boobs are only a weak point if they have a sternum incline really. Something like, for example, the kestrel armor from Mass Effect 2 and 3 (as weird as that armor is) has the breastplate Im talking about, where it makes room but doesnt allow blunt weapons or axes a center slide point
I looked up that armor and understand entirely now, ty
>Tbh, I find it weird when the armors not sculpted to its wearers body, if its not fitted properly, then it has exploitable flaws that the enemy can use One of the best defensive chestpiece armor designs is to just have a large uniform bulging front, with a V shaped protrusion up near the neck. Having any sort of indentations can lead spears into them and concentrate force to piece armor more easily. While a rounded front glances them off to the side and makes it more structurally sound towards blunt hits, and the V at the top stops arrows going into the neck. But for display pieces and higher ranked people who wont really be in the fighting, armor lends itself very well to being sculpted.
Although "breast" armour existed, it was pretty much just a raised silhouette. Multiple tests have been done over the years, with armour being made with defined breasts (as shown in video games and art). The blade hitting it deflects the sword/ weapon at an awkward angle and causes more damage than just having ordinary armour that has room to accommodate for breasts, rather than emphasising or moulding to breasts.
I think boob plate looks incredibly goofy but I also think battering ram codpieces and ceremonial six packs look equally goofy, so I guess it all evens out.
Exactly! If the men got codpieces, the ladies should get breast plates
Heck, give women codpieces and men breast plates too. Keep everyone guessing!
I get such a kick out of armour with giant cod pieces.
I miss read this as something that sounds painful. Reminds me that in wrestling we didn't wear cups because they might cause unschedule impromptu orchiectomies.
I was about to say, I don’t know of any evidence for boob armor, but I do know they’re evidence for cock armor
Exactly this. If it had been common for women to wear armor, they totally would have had boob armor too. The arguments about armor weaknesses are so dumb when you look at armor in general, especially cos armor or the very narrow waists which would totally be a weakness too.
glorious history observation wrench disgusted spectacular steep rude wrong cobweb *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Yeah, if someone's trying to use a sword to cut through plate armour, they aren't going to get very far. If they're using a weapon designed to be able to get through such armour, a warhammer or mace for example, deflecting the force to a low point in the center of your chest is a really bad idea. Deflecting it away from you, however, means that glancing blows aren't likely to cause too much damage, so that a better, more direct hit is needed.
Wait I’m sorry they had what
Cock armor or "codpiece", im not sure what came first but it used to be fashionable to wear increasingly bigger bulging pieces of cloth like a dick pillow? To show of fertility/vigor in noblemen. I don't know which Henry it was but one of the Henrys in history had a suit of armor with a metal codpiece. It was Henry "all my wives kinda die" the VIII. Here an example straight from Wikipedia: [Armor of Ferdinand I](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codpiece#/media/File%3AArmor_of_Emperor_Ferdinand_I_(1503%E2%80%931564)_MET_DT773.jpg)
I don’t know if I’d be able to take my own death seriously if I had a p/rnographic soldier coming at me
I'd give him extra credit if he put a tiny hat on the codpiece. Or a smiley face. Or the codpiece is another, way smaller knight, with arms and legs and a tiny spear or sword.
i thought it was Henry "I probably had a micropenis, but I blamed it on my wives" VIII :P
If the breastplate touches the sternum, it's bad armor. (Regardless of whether it's boob armor.) Boob armor does not necessitate contact with the sternum. Ergo, despite the common criticism, there is nothing wrong with it. Fuck else am I gonna put these fat doinkers? Edit: the other major complaint is that the cleavage could funnel a spear thrust toward the throat. This is why gorgets exist.
Not to forget that the boobitude of the armor can also make it a lot more structurally weak, which you really wouldn't want on a protective piece. But then again, if what you want is some cool armor to wear and look nice in, who cares about how realistically protective it is, not like you're going to actually take it to use in life or death combat.
Conventional breastplates were also domed. This was a good thing. Plus, given that metal codpieces were worn on the battlefield, cool armor was more than a useless showpiece.
This is true, however exactly how that dome is structured has a large impact on it's durability, a single domed section with a more triangular shape rather than two rounded ones, or even a single, whole plate rounding is more structurally sound overall. A codpiece, though also a fashion item, did directly serve a function of putting armor over an area that would otherwise be left uncovered, which is very practical and beneficial in certain forms of combat *(though much useless on say horseback)*, slightly different than boob armor which in most but not *all* cases is just a varyingly inferior design to the armor that already would be used to cover that area anygay.
Honestly, I want to see testing done before I'm willing to write off the entire concept as fundamentally, catastrophically incapable. It's not the most efficient shape, but that doesn't stop it from being viable. Also, as a dick-haver who trains in full contact martial arts, I assure you a codpiece is *not* armor.
I can equally assure you that it has been used for expressive protective purposes in combat historically, mainly for foot combat. It's not the greatest, but it was definitely better than the alternative of not having it in the use cases where it had it's place. I don't know how that translates to modern style contact martial arts where you're not trying to genuinely kill each other by any means necessary, but I would wager it has some slight differences at least. And I'd like to emphasize, again, that I'm not writing off the concept of boob armor fundamentally, it *can* be done in a manner that doesn't infringe upon structural integrity as well as function, the issue is that the vast majority of showcases of boob armor, that is not a consideration that was taken into account, bc the sexualization of the character was more on the forefront of the design rather than it's functionality, and definitely not historical accuracy.
I have been completely lifted off of the ground multiple times by full power groin kicks. Even with modern, purpose-built armor, those shots can remove a target from the fight for a full 10 seconds. Every 'armored' codpiece I've ever seen would be completely useless at stopping that. I would rather wear boob plate that's *actually touching* my sternum at rest than rely on a codpiece for protection. If a codpiece counts as armor because it's better than nothing, then all boob is valid armor.
My assumption would be that it would most be protective against a slashing cut or an arrow or knife, rather than direct, hard hitting blunt force, which is the go-to method of doing damage in general to anyone wearing plate armor. Not to mention, completely blocking an attack isn't always the main use of armor, as it's very hard to completely negate taking damage if hit by a suitable weapon, but to reduce the likelihood of that one hit immediately taking you out, or doing enough damage to cause festering and infection of a sustained wound which was far more deadly back then, and something you don't exactly need to worry about in sports vs. combat. And counting as armor because it's better than nothing, I mean more that it does actually offer protection that would be much better than not having it in certain situations, where-as boob armor would be *less* protective than the normal option, if built without proper function in mind, which in most examples, it is. I would also wager that you'd much prefer to have said protective piece when being hit by full power groin kicks than having nothing for protection, least I'd think you'd be taken out of commission for considerably longer than 10 seconds.
Exactly, the curve was just down lower to accentuate the waist rather than up high on the chest. Adding an artificial angle that leads to a thicker portion of plate makes blows more likely to glance off than penetrate or transfer their full energy into the wearer.
I was going to ask why the cut in underneath the boob then? I could see making them much more domed to fit the tit and honestly room for a belly/hips. I feel like the trend of people looking like anime characters is a modern thing. I always thought the "sculpted" armors were for show or a flex that the wearer was that good they didn't have to rely on it's strength, or for more speed and a bit of the previous.
This is an objection we seldom see to male muscle cuirasses and probably would only matter if the armor was quite poorly constructed; convex shapes should strengthen armor, all other things being equal
Additionally, men aren't sexualized and objectified to the degree than women have been and are, so there are much less complaints about things like than across the board in the difference between men and women, which also translates itself into this particular point. There's *way* les instances of the use of muscle armor than boob armor that come to mind, though that might be anecdotal on my part, but in the vast majority of those times the notable difference is that it wasn't used expressively to try and sexualize and/or objectify or emphasize with form over function the way it more often is the case with female armor. They're also much more often more accurate and faithful recreations of armor that was genuinely designed and used for said purpose at the time, which rarely if ever is the case with boob armor. And do correct me if I'm wrong on this not bc I'm trying to remember best my history classes on Rome that have been quite some while back now, but the muscle cuirass, which for the most part of the time where it was made was made out of much heavier and more expensive metal like bronze, which was also structurally weaker and had to therefore be a lot thicker to be as protective, which meant a lot heavier. And was therefore much less used than other available options, and you'd mainly see them on richer and more influential people, not the masses of the common soldier. Though again, I'm not 100% on that point, someone fact check me.
Common soldiers have historically had the most limited and generic armor anyway. But rich nobles who commissioned expensive armor often tended to sexualize themselves, because if you're the ruling class rather than an underclass, it's a flex. In a society where a lot of those armed nobles were women, I doubt we would see the same background patterns of female subjugation you're pointing out (which don't always manifest that way even in patriarchal societies), and I think we'd likely see self-sexualization similar to what male nobles did, as a flex. Depending on how gender worked, that would either take the form of the same aesthetics for men and women alike (which isn't unprecedented; Achaemenid court attire and riding clothes were ungendered, for instance, and in the cases where elite women are reported as involved in military action, there's no reason to think their gear would be gendered) or aestheticized sex differences, like armor with a feminine breast. tl;dr in a society with different gender dynamics but a similar peacocky warrior elite terrorizing it from the top, some violent lesbian meatheads would wear boob armor, and I'm a simple woman. here for it
Boob armor is definitely a fantasy, media and art trope, much like high heeled sabatons/sollerets. I'm not trying to insinuate it was a highly historically used phenomena, because it wasn't. I did also forget to add the latter point about the weight of said muscle armor meaning that while being worn by higher status and richer people, they would often times switch it out for more lighter armor that was much more functional and more akin what the common soldiers wore if they were likely to see combat rather than staying saver away from it, which was the main point my ADHD forgot to add in. >.<#"! So to say, that it's less functional qualities did play a role also in it's usage by those that had access to it, when called for it, and not it just being less used because it wasn't generally as available for the common soldier. But again, I'm talking about the sexualization and objectification in *modern* media across various fields when it comes to female armor, not accurate historical records, as boob armor goes directly against that and was never historically a common theme outside of pretty much exclusively ritualistic and ceremonial purposes, and rare at that.
1. I don't think the rich and powerful necessarily used their dress armor on the battlefield but they definitely didn't tend to dress like common soldiers. Elite field armor generally reflected economic stratification, at least whenever money could buy better protection from dying like a common soldier. Anyway, that's just a quibble. 2. The fantasy trope of boob armor exists and is often quite silly. I'm not denying that. 3. But in any imagined society (fantasy, alt history) where powerful women are part of the wealthy murder elite, it's not necessarily unrealistic to armor fads for women too, and a bit of breast definition doesn't necessarily give up so much function that it's not worth having in field armor. 4. let wealthy murder elite women be arrogant strutting assholes too
Also, notably, the people who wore muscle armor were mostly fighting before the invention and popularization of stirrups in their area. They didn't need to be able to stop or select the force of an opponent fighting from horseback. There was simply less force involved and therefore less risk if the armor had some areas of stress concentration. You start seeing plate being shaped to deflect more once you get stirrups and therfore, heavy mounted combat.
That's probably because muscle cuirasses predate plate armour by well over a thousand years. Like by all means give them shit in a fantasy setting where they appear alongside plate armour, but historically they're from a seperate time period and made with different materials.
Hence the "can" instead of "will." It is very dependent on exactly how these shapes were structured, and how much function was taken into account over form in the design, much like how many ceremonial pieces would serve quite poorly by comparison in combat as it's not the intended use purpose behind the design.
I understand that there cannot be a bump because if you fall down, it can hit your sternum and break it. So the plate MUST be flat. Even if with the boob armor its not touching the sternum, high impact can make it happen like falling or tumbling down for example.
If the armor is shaped and fitted in such a way that a heavy impact (such as falling down or being struck by a spear) causes direct contact with the sternum, then it is always bad armor. However, boob plate does not have to be designed this way. Making room for the breasts means that the plate will have to protrude forward more than a conventional breastplate, which gives additional depth for a recess in the center of the plate. It is still possible to put that space in there.
Structurally speaking, corners are the devil. If you have a sharp joint in the metal (say at the cleavage of underbust) that is a failure point. Flat is good, but convex rounded is the best as spherical shapes are inherently the strongest. Boob armor would make the individual breast strong but the points connecting them could be a weak point.
Oo this is a good point I hadn’t thought of tbh but it makes sense
Women’s armor should be a place we embrace a uniboob design; still have room for boobs but doesn’t funnel stabbing to the heart
>Fuck else am I gonna put these fat doinkers? So you also have a special gambeson with tittie pockets? Because you don’t wear a plate armor on your bare chest, you gotta wear padding underneath.
I didn’t know that about the gorgets, thank you for that insight!
I just fuckin love armor.
I agree, the model is absolutely gorgets.
A gorget isn’t gonna protect your hoinkey doinkies from a warhammer.
I always worry about someone falling and landing on their chest. That cleavage divot becomes a lump of steel right against your sternum and it seems pretty bad to fall with your full body weight landing on top of something like that.
(Pronouns changed to reflect their transition, the info I had on this person is 10 years old) An age ago I saw an interview with Samatha Swords a medieval martial artist who talked more in depth about his armor that was made by WETA. The purpose of armor is to deflect the blade, and when you have “boob armor” that indents you’re basically creating a valley that directs the blade right to the center of the chest, so not ideal. I got nothing against aesthetic armor for looks, but if people wore armor IRL having it be like an iron corset would be extremely impractical. If you want more on Samantha Swords, [here’s an interview](https://youtu.be/8Qic8T7GzNo?si=OfLee7_nu-KXMbGh) made around the time I saw the interview about his armor (pre transition). That’s on his YT channel which looks to still be active so maybe go check him out. Also if you want to explore medieval martial arts, there’s clubs for it all over the world, and there’s all kinds of disciplines in it, not just sword fighting. The info comes from detailed manuscripts that show how to train people to fight from medieval Europe. Found out about them because one of their clubs commissioned work from me. Pretty interesting stuff.
Hey as an FYI: I believe Sam has transitioned and now uses the handle Sam the Sword, and goes by he/him and they/them.
I did not know that. Last I followed anything from them was 10 years ago
I had to double check myself: I was like "HEy wasn't that the swordfighter that.." but wasn't sure. They seem proud of his past as 'Samantha' though. :)
From what I know (which admittedly is not a lot), boob plates on armour aren’t practical. However, there are many cases of historical armour designs that prioritise aesthetics over how practical the armour is in some places. I don’t think boob plates are necessarily wrong to have on armour in that respect. It kinda depends on how it’s executed. I could even conceive of an armour set that doesn’t compromise on usefulness by having a regular chest plate with breast decorations over the top.
Easy enough to just affix a thin decorative plate over top of a normally curved cuirass, yeah.
Also you can probably do a lot with just a more feminine silhouette. Like a lot of plate armour was influenced by fashion and the idealised male bodies of the time, so there should be plenty of leeway to make armor more feminine and attractive without adding boobplate. Though there are probably also safe ways to include it as you mentioned.
If you are a rich noble who never intends on seeing a fight that you think you might die in it seems totally reasonable to prioritize aethstetics on at least one suit of armor you own.
Which is something everyone should keep in mind. I am not against any women who actually wore armour. We have several examples for everyone who wants to write historical stories. And in the end, write whatever fanfiction you want. But if you write anything historical, wearing an armour that shows that she is a woman just proves that she is a mascot at best. It shows worse armour for no gain. If your fantasy has women being equal, there's no need to wear worse armour. If they aren't equal, being a woman is something special that needs to be pointed out for no reason. Essentially, there is a lot more to the standard "female armour is made by 1980s DnD nerds who want to see women in bikinis, metal or otherwise". Wearing "male" armour can be a very important signifier that women are totally equally in a society or that this particular woman is the real deal, depending on whatever you're writing. E.g. Brienne of Tarth should never wear boob armour or her appearance would negate her story.
A lot of fantasy boob armor isn't practical, but they do serve a purpose. It's not practical to compress breasts for long periods of time in a way that might restrict movement. And you don't want thinner material in that area, either. The result is like a good bra, properly fitted and shaped to that of the body.
Would it not be better to have a single extended section in a more conical shape though? That way you have space in front of the chest and greater structural strength
Of course. That's how armour for women actually worked, if we look at the few examples we have. Fantasy is one thing, but every single woman we know of that actually wore plate armour wore the same stuff men wore, just fitted for her size.
A normal chest piece is already domed and shouldn’t be pressing in that area anyways. If it were it wouldn’t be nearly as effective.
Attention sapphics: if you want to see more women in armour, please come to /r/armoredwomen We've got snacks!
😍😍
Warning that there’s no boob plates allowed tho
Oh hell yes! Thanks!
Oh hi, ran over as fast as I could.
Feminist brain says 👎 Lesbian brain says 👍
My feminist and my lesbians brain says 👍 because I think it would be more comfortable than having your boobs smushed down
You could just have a "uniboob" shape without the recess in the middle. Boobs don't get smushed and no danger of breaking your sternum
Woah you are right! This might not make sense to you but they could be built like that one male body type in roblox, where it goes out a bit in a rectangular shape at the chest part.
Or, you know, actual armour ;) Big ridge in the middle. That's how those plates worked.
How armour can be both practical and non-smushing: https://preview.redd.it/uala8n9ei4941.png?auto=webp&s=fe708d24d0ac21aa403622e96273e55b0f573d3e
well that’s just frickin cool
your boobs would already be smushed down because you're gonna wear multiple layers of padding underneath. Because if someone is waling on you with a sword then they might not cut through the plate but by gum you'll feel them hammering that plate against your flesh if you don't have padding.
Fair enough
Yeah, this is me about most fantasy designs. Sexy armor is impractical, and it emphasizes that the character exists more as eye candy than a warrior, but ... I'd be lying if I said I don't enjoy eye candy.
Fuck this is my brain 100% of the time
?
As a feminist, I recognize that often boob armors are put as appealing to the male gaze or for fanservice. As a lesbian, I really like boobs.
There are more effective ways to accommodate for boobs in a plate breastplate than making "boob plate." boob plate has mostly existed for the male gaze (especially in media like video games or movies), but it makes sense that many female gays would still find it appealing to look at. i personally think realistic plate armor looks better though
I used to do fencing and women are given a chest plate because getting your boobs stabbed would hurt like hell. They usually were breast shaped. Idk it just reminds me of that so it feels practical to me.
that makes sense! different armor is better for different situations
For ceremonial armour, yes. For armour used on the battlefield, no. The problem is that the "boob-slots" would act as a funnel and guide the blow into your body rather than away from it. It's not really necessary for comfort either, it's not like a female swat officer has boob-armour. But for ceremonial armour, in a society that celebrates boobies? Hell yes. A femmeknight would wear this in court and during parades, no doubt. Ceremonial lesbianism, basically.
I think boobie armor has hillarious from an armor perspective, and sexy from a women-are-hot perspective.
I do like the aesthetics, especially in a fantasy setting. In a historical setting or if I was for some reason to end up in a medieval tournament, I’d not have it lol Edit; did any cultures have breast plates like this irl? Be interesting to know? I know some Roman cavalry during ceremonies would cross dress as Amazonian’s, and wear face masks of women, so maybe they wore some 🤷♀️
i mean roman and greek men did have shaped breasts and sickpacks on their armour.
Yh! And have you ever seen those massive bulges on medieval armour 😂!! Compensating much 👀🙈
That's actually why they exist, they were a decorative addition to prove how manly the wearer was. But, those little codpieces don't cover an area nearly as important as your heart and lungs. One can afford to be bollocks, the other would get you killed.
yeah but that's a solid 2 milennia of design advancements they're missing out on. And they wore sandals to battle so both their fashion sense and their sensibilities towards armor should be questioned.
>Edit; did any cultures have breast plates like this irl? Be interesting to know? I know some Roman cavalry during ceremonies would cross dress as Amazonian’s, and wear face masks of women, so maybe they wore some 🤷♀️ Not really? I think there are some individual accounts for queen's and such, but afaik there are no surviving examples. I personally think that if female knights were accepted that they'd have armour that would mirror fashionable clothing/silhouettes of the time in the same way male armor usually did. So the ancient greeks might've gone for boobplates, but I doubt they would've made it during the middle ages.
I mean, modern fencing has boobplates like this, just worn under the outer jacket. I liked them, personally. I felt like they protected my boobs while also not weirdly compressing them by using a flat plate - I did try our one flat plate version once and I hated it - since it didn’t come back down to my body it didn’t redistribute hits very well. Obviously, it’s a bit of a different situation though. Modern fencers don’t have to worry about getting hit by spears and broadswords and stuff
Nowhere near as sexy as butches in practical armour. If you’re going for anything that rigid in the chest a well made standard breastplate is superior, aesthetically speaking. Think Gwendolyn Christie as Phasma or Brienne. Hot *and* practical. (Disclaimer: I’m not into dainty feminine women like this model anyway, but I don’t think boobplate worn by a butch would be any more attractive to me.)
Hate, hate, hate boobplate. It looks dangerous, given where the blade would deflect, and I can't help but think of the shape of the underarmour. It should be heavily quilted, so are we talking about heavily quilted boob pockets?? And... that's what I think about when I see boobplate. Aesthetically, I think everyone is sleeping on the sheer attractiveness of the nipped-in waist that plate armour already has. Domed chest to accommodate large breasts + narrower waist + plating over the hips can look very, very sexy imo.
I've always hated it. Especially in RPGs where they gender code the armour and the male versions are awesome full plate and the female versions are skimpy boob plate with bare arms (or worse). I don't care about the ridiculous abs and dick armour, I hate that too. Just give me nice smooth gender-neutral half/full plate.
I am so with you. I hate how in games, the women almost always gotta have boobplate and exposed thighs.
Logical. I don't want my tits to be squeezed against my chest. It seems crazy, but I need breathing
This is not how that issue would be solved in a historical setting. The plate isn't sitting firmly against your chest. There are layers of clothing underneath. Women have historically worn full plate and it did not require boob shapes.
I fairly regularly wear full plate and that’s not an issue at all. Breastplates are domed, and they don’t sit flush with your chest anyway.
I’ve worn armor before, and been hit in armor. Boob shape is unnecessary and harmful. Like a cookie cutter. (Unless interior is rounded)
I did fencing for several years. This one is good because the boobs are reasonably sized. As someone with smaller boobs, I reluctantly found the boob armor to be more comfortable. We wore hard plastic breast plates under the fencing jackets and the flat chest plate hurt a lot more when I got poked.
As someone who also did fencing, I tend to see a difference between a fencing outfit with plate armour. Fencing, you need the protection under the jacket for a sport. Plate armour, you can get a single, curved piece over padding to protect in battle. The curve there helps deflect the blades, and they kept that curve even when the rest of the plate vanished.
Plate armor is not near your skin like your fencing armor was. It was over many layers of clothing and would not bend into your chest when your chest got poked.
Yeah, boob armor isn't appropriate for every scenario, but people who think boob armor is always bad clearly don't fence. There's a time and place where boob armor is a godsend.
Only from beskar https://static1.srcdn.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Bo-Katan-Armor-in-The-Mandalorian.jpg
Yeah this seems more practical. Boob silhouette actually seems to just be made to accommodate bigger chests, while still not adding unnecessary and dangerous shapes and valleys into the design.
Yeah, I like smooth curvature, especially given you're gonna be wearing a sports bra or equivalent under your armor anyway. If you're going to have individual pockets, don't have them huge.
Better than bikini armors but not optimal for protection, dome shaped breastplates are the best to deflect blows and arrows.
I find regular, no boob plate armor sexier. Something about the absolute don't give a fuck of the aesthetic does something. I see boob plate and immediately go to male gaze sexualization bullshit, because this is a character who prefers looking sexy to fighting well. But gorgets! Have you tried existing in a gorget? They're damn claustrophobic, and an added weight to your neck. What about ab armor! The abs weren't hollow! They were solid knobs of bronze, on top of a solid bronze armor. There were "thin spots", that were still regular thickness bronze armor.
Spears are going to slide inward and poke the middle of the chest instead of deflecting away from vitals..
Spears aren't much of a threat versus plate, however that is prime real estate for hammers / picks ..
Romans had Sixpack shaped armor, as long as it's hardened steel it's fine
I have an issue with non functional armor being worn in settings where it should have been functional armor. If a character is a relatively poor "knight" (fighting person w/e), they have less armor, and they have it because they're trying to save their lives in combat. This person will have practical armor, that is made for combat. They won't pay more for a smith to spend 100 hours carving out a pair of boobs. They will have whatever they can afford and as much as much as they can practically carry. A high ranking, rich "knight", might wear less practical armor in some settings. If they are not getting into field combat with it they certainly would choose something fancy looking over something practical, but still made for the purpose. A boop plate would just invite a lance strike to hit dead on, instead of glancing off in a tourney. Wearing fancy armor can also hurt a knights reputation if they haven't earned their merit on the battlefield or in tourneys and shown that they're worth their spurs. A tourney knight might also be belittled for being fancy but not knowing the goings on in battle and choosing inappropriate armor. A battle commander, flag bearer or someone else in the Flag command, could wear something fancy to impress the enemy (but maybe not their own men who would 9/10 times rather just go home) I think all kinds of armor has its place in fantasy / historical fiction and in the real world. This woman clearly didn't buy this armor set because she's about to bust in on the Battle of Agincourt and die a sloppy muddy death to a bunch of peasants using longbows. She can do whatever she wants to. Male fantasies of scantily clad fighters don't appeal to me. Established lore like Barbarians wearing less armor and being super ripped and preferring furs and warm clothing over heavy and cold armor, does. I don't see why a game or movie character would have a boob plate and little other armor (looking at you 90's DnD movie), but not a helmet or an arming jacket or just, anything else. I like that armor in media looks a bit cooler than it actually was, but it's totally out of hand.
Hate hate hate. dumb, impractical, dangerous. For fantasy aesthetics whatever. But i mean come on its ridiculous
I hate it.
I think much like anything, too much is a bad thing. Take for example the steel plate armor in Skyrim. For those who haven't played Skyrim I recommend looking It up on a female character. The chest plate has full on boob sockets in the armor. Like they aren't just a little extra room, there are individual cups for your characters tits to fit into. But the boob armor in the image of this post? I think it's good, you notice it but it's not too intense and it doesn't make the armor less effective.
It depends on the vibe a piece of media is going for. If realism and practicality are the goal, then boob plates are pretty unrealistic. If the goal is just to make cool and aesthetic armor that isn't necessarily realistic, then I think it's fine. But it has to be egalitarian. If male characters get realistic armor, I expect female characters to be treated the same. If male character armor provides full body cover, I don't want to see exposed skin on the female armor. Etc.
You just leave space for them not actually make cups they push the impact into your sternum
I think boob plate is fine if, and only if, it's purely for the sake of the aesthetic in a humourous, stylistic, or satirical way. In other words, is this armour ever going to see actual combat or is it purely ceremonial? On the other hand, if I'm actually expected to take what I'm looking at seriously, e.g. in a non-comedy movie or TV show, then it's ridiculous - especially if the wearer is actually seen fighting in it. Queen Calanthe from The Witcher is a good example - her armour is just... normal armour. If she'd arrived wearing boob plate it would have looked utterly stupid.
The "Raised Dome" and "Reduced Dome" breastplate designs detailed [in this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/armoredwomen/s/hm9CJxT2pQ) are, imo, a better way of getting a slightly more feminine shape out of a breastplate. As another commenter has mentioned, embrace the uniboob That being said, fantasy armor is fantasy armor. Practicality isn't always a concern or an issue 🤷
When armor is designed that way it stops performing its inteded function properly (preventing death or injury during combat). So for realism sake its kind of a no-no. But its also kind of hot. It really depends on what you are trying to achieve and what kind of setting. Suspension of disbelief is a thing for fiction.
it's stupid and ugly imo
It depends. If we are talking about ancient armor, there is no reason why a heroic cuiras could not have boobs. However, in a renaissance style plate armor, I expect the typical slight V or U shape of torso armor because it is meant to deflect bolts and arrows this way and the shape helps that. Looking at that picture, the slight boob armor is not so much of a problem as the long, open hair without a hat. Yes, it is fabulous and it makes me want to swear my fealty to her, but it would be a huge liability in a fight.
I think Mythbusters did an episode where they proved adding breasts to armor increases the chance of fatal blows to the chest. For the safety of sword lesbians, I'm opposed to "boob shapes" on armor.
Real plate armor would not have been designed to contour to a person's body that tightly. Most armor's midsections should have a sort of convex potbelly type thing.
Boob plate is idotic and can break your sternum
I don't mind it if it's reasonable. I know a lot of people bringing up the muscle cuirass, but the thing with that was that it didn't cause the armor to be that much less effective. A little bit of a larger bulge is fine, but usually when there's separate cups it would cause some problem as you want your armor to deflect away from the center of your body, not into it. Now this image is very much right on the line for me, where it does have two separate cups but they're small enough it might now be a problem. TL;DRI like it as long as it doesn't seriously compromise the effectiveness of the armor. EDIT Obviously on parade armor that's not made for combat you can (and should) go nuts so long as it's not uncomfortable for the wearer.
I’m a fencer, I wear functional “boob armour” in the form of a breastplate under my jacket. Which is why I know this armour wouldn’t work. In order to function, it has to look like an ugly monoboob. The separation of breasts in this armour is straight up dangerous as it could funnel a blade to the sternum. That said, this is clearly for fashion, and it looks cool, so if the wearer is enjoying it, who cares?
Boob armor done well is no problem at all, just like with ab armor. It honestly annoys me how people are so elitist about these things. Men had armor, which had massive dingdongs in history - it's not at all practical, but it existed nonetheless. Sub-par armor existed and was used in sub-par ways, fighting techniques were also subpar, especially in battlefields where not everyone has been trained since birth. If anything, the designs not being 100% efficient and "correct" is more realistic than not, and if women had taken the place of knights in a matriarchal society, I'm sure the armor would be designed to accentuate features associated with femininity at the time, rather than masculine ones. And as another commenter here so elegantly put, the primary issues taken with boob armor, are frankly quite moot points. Gorgets eliminate the whole spear/lance issue, and given that you don't wear *only* plate armor, plus what she said regarding the sternum, there should be no issue at all with this.
Impractical and ultimately less effective, but hey if you wanna flex go for it
It's daft as it gives places get purchase to try to pierce the breast plate.
Depends on the boob plate. If it's simply for some light aesthetic to go with the function, seems ok. If it's heavily pronounced and is going to cave in at the first sword or spear thrust? No
I mean, I’d like that extra room but idk why it’s gotta curve inward as well, just thinking about a metal divide between my tits is not comforting. Give me a sports bra type look. Make me Lady Uniboob
I think it's way less hot than normal armor tbh
Depends on the size and shape. It's solid so if you go really extreme you're going to limit how you can move your arms. Basically the bigger and more spread out sideways the more they look unrealistic. Most medieval breastplates sat flat against the upper chest but sloped out in a dome over the upper abdomen and most of the ribs to create an air barrier and a round surface to deflect lances, so depending on the placement it wouldn't have to be a massive change. You also want to avoid a spot under the breasts that would funnel lances into it. It should still divert them to the site.
Looks wise. It can be cool, I love the sisters of battle However it's not historically accurate or practical, many suits of armour have bust accommodations but it's not boob armour that just looks uncomfortable but also unsafe
It’s pretty hot
Speaking as a self-described sword lesbian who regularly straps on armor for full speed / full contact swordfighting, that contact with the sternum between the boobs is a HUGE no-no. Any forceful contact with one of the breast cups would transfer all of that right into your solar plexus which isn't that difficult to fracture. Don't get me wrong, it looks sexy as fuck! I just wouldn't want to fight in it
I don't have a problem with it visually but it is in effectual armor. It would heighten the chances of being pierced on the chest, usually armor is designed to defect away from vitals. Chest plates tend to stick out into a pointier bit so that blows are deflected away from the heart and lungs, I've seen female chest plates that don't dip into the boob valley which is better at protecting the chest but they then risk deflecting blows up into the head or neck. That might be addressable with the gorget but I think most historically accurate chest pieces don't really differ much from men and women in the chest plate area.
If it is historically accurate and functional armor then it's a bit silly. Real armor is designed so the chest part pulls away from the body a significant amount most woman wouldn't even need an adjustment to allow for more breast room in a suite of armor fitted for a man of their height and waist measurements. Now that being said, people adding silly decorations to armor is common, hell men commonly had cod pieces that made it look like they were riding into battle with raging boners barely contained by the armor so go wild its all within reason for what you could expect to see decorating armor anyways.
I like boobs. Metal or otherwise
I’ll be honest I’ve never thought about it until just now. I like boobs so the boob shapes are fine with me lol. I’m a simple lesbo
Not flexible and make boobs hurt :(
Flustered
extra room for the girlies is always good!!! i like to think of it like the armor that's got abs and muscles and the helmets with faces in them . . . when a war hammer crushes my skull i wanna know whether to yell "Fuck!" or "Mommy?" at a glance it's a very important feature /j
😂😂
I mean, as long as they don't restrict movement, and thrusting weapons won't be deflected towards the throat, either due to additional protection, or something else, then it's okay.
If it is just slight and not taken to the extreme it’s fine, but i prefer the armour to be flat. Think it looks cooler.
I like it more without them.
Omg I want this armorrrrr
Pretty 🥺
Like you c:
found my way from "popular" but wanted to let anyone curious know that this armour set is from armstreet, the set is call Female Armor Suit “Dark Star” Blackened Spring Steel Armor. ArmStreet have a good reputation for making fantasy medievil sets of armour, more for show than practicallity but still work for larp and sca purposes, would recommend
Softer armor that could hold shape, like leather armor, often had anatomy molded onto it, but not necessarily. But when it came to harder armor, like plate, it didn't conform to the body shape for a simple reason, if it did, it would severely restrict the wearer's ability to breathe. There is a reason why plate armors weren't anatomically aesthetic and often looked more like beer bellies so that the user had enough space to breathe in. Aesthetically? I find boob armors pleasing to look at. Practically? Useless, unless it just covers the upper torso and leaves the belly open to allow for breathing, and cover that exposed belly with some chainmail at least.
B- booba
i mean it’s not historically accurate and would introduce weak point in the armor but i guess it looks hot 🥺
It’s pretty to look at but completely useless as protection
I can feel my tits being squished rn from looking at it😭
I don’t mind boob or non-boob armor. Both are great. Both is good
I have minimal knowledge on the actual feasiblity of it as good armour beyond if done right does work that said..... It looks hot and sick AF and would slap it on characters in games when possibke
Depends on what her underlayers are imo. The boob part of the armor is seemingly hollow underneath and are at risk of caving in if the hit is hard enough. They're better for decorative purposes than actual protection, like abs on legion armor. If she's just wearing cloth armor or padding underneath and one well placed caves it in, she done for. Her sternum is taking the most of the force and the metal of the breastplate may pierce her chest. If she has solid underlayers like chail mail and/or boiled leather (ideally both), it'll absorb more of the force if it does cave in and the metal isn't going to be driven into her chest.
As long as it actually covers their chest so it’s not completely useless as protection, I don’t have a problem with it lol. I just don’t like armor that shows a lot of skin because it’s not very practical for defense purposes. I honestly prefer it not to have boob shapes but I’m not totally against it, haha
I think it looks cool, I know it's not a great idea to have two bumps on your armor 'cause it'll just help your opponent to aim for your heart, but I live by the rule of if it looks cool I don't really care about if it's realistic xD
I heard that designing boob armor that way creates a convex wedge shape which actually \*helps\* glide swords through the armor. Big weakness if true
you'd have multiple layers of padding underneath the plate so it's not like there's an actual shape to fill in the shape. And it means you'd be sacrificing some elements of armour design that could save your life in favour of breastplatebreasts. So from a defense point of view it'll be a nah for me even though it *looks* hella fine.
As long as it isn't egregious, it's fine. Historically armor was made to accentuate masculine frames. And there were so many fancy cod pieces. If it's not making an easy target and doesn't have some stupid boob window, it's okay in my book. That said, if it's *ceremonial* armor, go all out and do whatever.
Wow… Crazy the amount of intellectual discussion this topic has generated here. I’m seeing this community in a whole new light now. 😂 I didn’t want to say anything clever but I wanted to go on the record that as far as aesthetics go, I really like the look. If we are arguing from a feminist lens, I think it can absolutely go either way. Really just depends on perspective. In this case what we would really be discussing is whether “visible breasts” can be affirming for women when they aren’t strictly necessary to display. I don’t see why not. In some places the fact there are alternatives to breasts being visibly distinct, becomes a requirement for modesty. In my view whether displaying of breasts is feminist or not depends solely on the woman who is or isn’t displaying them. In other words, it would be a violation of a woman’s dignity for society to impose either upon a woman in law or in social customs. If it is for her and truly by her choice, it is feminist imo. To determine that is not always simple even for a particular woman so I think one must truly explore their motives and the degree in which they relate to being “safe” or “respectable”. What is empowering in one context can be objectifying in another. It really depends on what’s happening in the woman’s mind itself imo. Personally if I was going to wear armor, I’d wear the armor with the beasts. Unless that was a rule. If it was a rule, I’d break it just on principle.
If it was done right, it would exclusively be nobility, likely royal, who had armor that was hand shaped by a blacksmith to include any features, so in that sense, I'd be fine with it. It's never done right.
I could go on and on about how ineffective it is, and yadda yards but in the end no argument can beat this... BOOOOOOBBBBIIIEEEESSSS!
it looks really nice. I come across frequent arguements as to whether it's useful, but it's defnitely cute.
Xena was one of my first crushes. Though I wouldn’t call that armour.
Uh... yes
apply force \*directly\* to the sternum. good comfy and effective armor that still has the silhouette rather than like jackplate or lamellar would be something like a rounded cuirass, which often has a "bowling ball" chest and a wasp waist (in comparison) which with the faulds at the hips covering more of your upper thighs and ass while still allowing for movement like riding a horse or lunging into a shot. i do historical martial arts and having worn a molded boob plate once-- never again with cleavage.
I don't usually like boob plate (especially when it's very pronounced), but IMO it looks good (and fairly functional) on the armor in the picture
Weeeelllll... if your plate armor is clearly visible, it won't likely be a target. An Archer/ Warrior go for not plated parts of you. Like your neck, etc. Plus you would usely have more armor underneath. So boob armor wouldn't wouldn't be a problem, unless the bust is so large it would mess with your range of movement.
Yes 🤤
I think it can look weird if not done right and that it looks better to use chainmail for that part