Female armor: Fantasy vs Reality

This episode of Shadiversity is
brought to you and sponsored by ‘Campfire’. Not ‘A campfire’, that would be silly.
‘Campfire’ is a really sophisticated writing tool. If you’re a writer like
me and love to delve into sci-fi and fantasy and things, you’ll know that it
can be really tricky to keep track of characters, place names and also timeline of events, especially when these things, like characters, start to number
in the hundreds. Seriously, I’ve actually made Word
documents trying to keep track of timeline of events of my novel, but campfire
actually offers this tool in a much better version for you, that’s fully
integrated with character bios and also world building. You can add hundreds
of character bios to a specific story that you’ve made with detailed
information, such as relationships, personality traits, of course name and
age and such, and also custom panels for anything specific that might be unique
to that character. You can use the powerful timeline tool to add specific
scenes and plot events to keep track of what is happening and when. It uses a
straightforward drag-and-drop system so you can easily reorganize the structure the story as needed as you develop it further. Campfire also has a fully
featured world building tool where you can add any number of maps to this tool,
add pins for each location and flesh out all the details like the backstory, the
history, the culture and such. So basically campfire is a wonderful
organization tool for writers like me, so you can organize all the characters, all
the plot lines and the storyline that you have, and also the
really detailed world building that usually goes into stories like this. So go check them out, there is a link in the description below. Greetings, I’m Shad. And I want to talk to you a little bit about female
armor, which is an interesting kind of thought or idea because historically
there wasn’t really such a thing as ‘female armor’ in that sense.
Armor was just armor and if a female wanted to wear armor, they would wear
normal armor. Why? I’ll get to that in a second, because there is a kind of realm
in which female armor is very specific and prominent, as opposed to male armor. It’s not in history, it’s in fantasy. So why is that? Why is female armor so
defined now? I actually should kind of point out what type of female I’m
talking about here, because there is the ‘female armor’ that’s always the bikini
and stuff like that. If you’re interested I’ve made a whole video addressing the
‘barbarian bikini armor’ kind of trope to find out if it could actually be
feasible and realistic. So that’s a whole video onto itself. I don’t want to talk
about bikini armor, I want to talk about say full plate armor that is made to
emphasize and kind of shape to the female form. One of the ways that you’ll
see this depicted in fantasy artwork and stuff like that is of course there is a
prominent kind of bulge around their bust to emphasize the female form. And some of these designs don’t seem too implausible or impractical, in fact they
kind of seem realistic. So if they are realistic, why didn’t they exist in
medieval times in actual history? And why would we even want armor shaped to a
type of form to emphasize a visual image or look in the first place? Good
questions. Let’s dive into it. I’ll address the latter question first. The
first thing we need to understand that armor was actually made to a very
specific type of aesthetic. We have to understand that this is very different
to our modern sense of fashion. There are many cultures in the world that
have a very different aesthetic or an idea of what looks interesting or
appealing, and when we actually combine the two – cultural differences and
differences between the past and present – we see some pretty darn big variations.
Look at China in the past where it was seen women
very little feet was very very attractive and appealing; we see certain
African tribes where if they stretch out their bottom lips or years – that’s a turn
all right; and also in European cultures we see certain periods in history – it
wasn’t universal throughout every time in medieval history and Renaissance
and other things like changing cultures, but women that had a bit more
plump were seen as more attractive. And in regards to what
they found as certain things attractive in men? Well, there is a thing called the
codpiece. So, comparing the past is also like comparing vastly different cultures
in regards to aesthetics and also just what they found appealing. They also had
a vastly different perspective on what was proper and improper. In the modern
day we would find something like the codpiece to be not only
ridiculous and unattractive, it is like weird and strange, like ‘What?!’ But in that
time it was seen as a very manly kind of thing to have a bulge in that area, and
some of those bulges were rather extreme. There is another aesthetic kind of
feature that was seen as particularly attractive in men in the past that
applies very directly to armor. But just before we hop off of that
codpiece thing, it shouldn’t surprise us that these aesthetic influences were
actually applied to armor as well. Look at Henry the eighth’s armor, and what you
see there? A big old… A big old honking codpiece paid out of
metal made into his armor itself. So they actually incorporated their
aesthetic preferences to armor. So the idea that we have in fantasy, where
fantasy designs are made to look aesthetically appealing, is not foreign
or unrealistic. We did it in history, but we did it with a very different
aesthetic in mind. It was the medieval as setting. This is
the historical setting! Now, if you want more information on this idea of the
medieval aesthetic as opposed to our modern sensibilities and ideas of what
looks attractive and stuff like that, Ian LaSpina from the YouTube channel
‘Knyght Errant’ has made a full video on this very subject. It is so good, so
informative! So I really would just go check it out. There’s a card there and a
link in the description below. Medieval aesthetic – really good! And one of the other aesthetics that people really appreciated, and this was kind of seen as
a manly thing, were really thin waists. Having a very tight thin waist was seen
as attractive and manly. And so what do we see in armor design? Very very thin
waists in some circumstances. Because we have to remember, once again, the medieval period wasn’t a homogeneous hole. There were different cultures and things
changed between time periods, because the medieval period was a long period in time,
funnily enough. What I find interesting in fantasy, and this isn’t a criticism –
it’s something I actually like and appreciate – it’s that fantasy doesn’t
have to be restricted completely to what we did in history. Even if they base
it in a medieval setting, because it’s fantasy we can take some liberties. I
tend to criticize those liberties that are taken outside the realm of
practicality, realism and believability – let’s keep it at least functional;
but if we keep it functional there are certain liberties we can take. For
instance applying a modern aesthetic to our fantasy medieval designs. And this is
often done quite a lot. Have a look at the male armor. You won’t
actually find historical armor in this shape, but could you make armor in this
shape? Yes! Yes, you can. What are the differences? Well, it’s done and designed
to a modern aesthetic. And so what is the modern aesthetic for manliness and strength and power? It’s usually broad shoulders, a fairly solid
chest. It has a bit of a silhouette thin waist, but not nearly the wasp thin
waist of medieval times and their aesthetic. But this is our aesthetic, and
honestly, because we appreciate and understand this cultural appeal, that
looks pretty impressive and cool! And so when we apply this same standard
to female armor, again I think it’s actually not too unrealistic. But if the
medieval people’s had such established and understood aesthetic styles, why
wasn’t that applied to female armor of the medieval period? Well, there’s a very
simple and basic answer to it. Barely any females wore armor in the
medieval period. No, there are certainly cases when they
did, I mean everyone will point to Joan of Arc and other things like that, but we
have to understand that these are the rare exceptions to the norm. The standard
was that women didn’t fight. This wasn’t men saying you couldn’t fight, it’s the
fact. In reality most women, when given the choice, would choose not to fight. And
an actual fact – most men, when given the choice, would probably choose not to
fight unless there’s a cultural kind of emphasis on protection and also courage
and manliness and stuff like that, which I actually feel is a good thing, because
you want the people who are most well-equipped to protect society. To
protect society – and men, on average being stronger than women –
those are the ones that you want in the battlefield. So developing a culture
around men needing to be brave and courageous and protecting those weaker
to them is a positive thing and beneficial for society as a whole. And I
also feel there are certain biological instincts like men being very naturally
competitive and aggressive that help men out protecting others and stuff
like that when channeled in a positive good direction. So this should not
surprise us in any measure that men for the larger majority of history were the
ones who were wearing armor and fighting, and because of that armor was shaped to
fit their actual physical form and emphasize the forms that people in the
past found to be attractive, impressive. The interesting thing about this is that
armor by its design actually can fit the standard female form just as easily as
the standard male form. And remember, it’s because I said ‘by its design’.
For instance, there’s actually a cavity on armor. If you look on a breastplate, the plate does not sit flat on your
chest, it actually sits above and there’s a bit of a dome. And oftentimes
medieval design had an emphasis on what they found attractive. The dome was actually
lower around their body. It didn’t make them look fat because it was followed by
a very thin waist, but that dome was usually lower. And the reason why it was
domed is that there’s greater chance for a weapon, when it strikes, to deflect off a rounded smooth surface, than if it was just flat there. But this doming on
the chest and the dome does raise up. There is a bit more of an emphasis,
usually on low, but it is also domed and there’s space between the actual
breastplate itself and your chest. There’s enough room in there for a
woman’s bust to fit in quite easily, and so it doesn’t actually need to be made
different to accommodate for female anatomy as opposed to male anatomy. Also,
on average, women tend to have more rounded hips and the pelvis area than
men, but that’s the same thing with armor. If you have a look at the armor where
the fold comes out from where the breastplate matches, it’s actually got
room between the edge of the fold and your hips. This is actually put in the
armor so you can maneuver it around and actually bend around your waist, so there
needs to be room in between which actually accommodates for anyone with
larger hips than the average man. So the reasons being the fact that armor
actually is made to be able to accommodate for the female form, and the fact that so
few females actually wore armor – we do not see historical armor that’s made
specifically to emphasize and also present the female form as opposed to
the male form. But… A but here. If there was a situation in history where a
large majority of females actually ended up fighting to the point where their
armor was starting to be made specifically for them, I feel there is easily
precedent in history to point out that armor was made to emphasize physical
appearance. And in our historical case it was physical male appearance, but that’s
a precedent in my mind, and so if armor was being made for women and cultures were
different historically, I actually feel armor would have been made to emphasize
female appearance for females wearing it. It would still be fully practical and
functional but it would be made with very specific intent. And what would be
some of the differences? Well, I think the bulge that you generally see on the
armor instead of being a bit lower would be a bit higher to emphasize the bust. Maybe that wasp-thin waist probably would
still be kept the same. The hips would probably be kept the same. Really the
only difference that I think you’d be able to point out very specifically is the
emphasis on the chest area. Most of the other armor segments don’t need
to be changed at all. With our modern sensibilities we don’t really associate
a wasp thin waist with something that we see as a manly physical shape, and the
funny thing is we actually more associate that with female appearance – having a really thin waist, but that’s already there in medieval
historical armor. But if we wanted to take that to a fantasy setting where we
only wanted to impose a modern aesthetic to the appearance and design of the
armor, we wouldn’t actually see such wasp thin waist like we see in medieval
armor; we would actually see a bit broader, certainly larger – basically
what we see in medieval fantasy artwork. And the realistic female armor designs
are perfectly fine in my opinion – talking about fantasy specifically. If you’re
setting your world in a medieval setting, you need to understand:
custom-made female armor that emphasizes a female form – to my understanding, I
haven’t seen any examples of this, didn’t exist historically at all. But in fantasy –
all power to you: there’s precedent, there’s logic to it, and it also looks
really cool! So awesome! So there we go. This has been a detailed look, looking at
female armor, comparing the historical precedent, and also what we can do in
fantasy. So thank you very much for watching, I hope you have enjoyed, and if
you’re wanting to hear more of my thoughts on specifically female armor,
for instance can bikini armor, be realistic in fantasy and stuch (stuff+such=stuch), do go
check out that video. I hope to see you there, and until that time, farewell.

100 thoughts on “Female armor: Fantasy vs Reality

  1. 1. Zenobia wore breast featured armor during roman times it seems: http://d3vjn2zm46gms2.cloudfront.net/blogs/2017/04/27002704/1_zenobia_nga-1300×926.jpg
    2. Tamar of Georgia in middle ages, a statue but seems to be of her in breast featured armor with sword: https://bobsaway.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/mothergeorgia.jpg

  2. You should have mentioned Caterina Sforza, she had customized armour, it has even survived all these centuries and is in a museum now.

  3. One must also take into account the large, heaving bust is a relatively new evolutionary development. Women have been sex selected for breasts that previously only became large toward the end of child birth.

  4. I think this video is (while interesting) quite pointless. I mean it doesn't take a genius to figure out why fantasy female armour has boob cups on them.

  5. Back then , women were there to give birth to children and raise them. Men were the ones that had jobs. There is a diference with having a job , like blacksmith , farmer and similar , and having to take care of someone. Jobs can be left for either conquering land or protecting a land then leaving children you raise and take care of. There , more or less the biggest reason you will need.

    I usually don't listen to sponsored content but that was a great tool thanks!

  7. What about the Amazon's we haven't really found any of their armor that I know of but would it have looked like the armor in modern fanasty? Cause they didn't have men in there camps to make there armor so do you think they'd have armor made the same way as mans by someone on the outside or would they have had a female blacksmiths make there armor that looks like what we see in Morden fanasty?

  8. 8:00 in before Shadiversity gets banned from Youtube and gets his Patreon taken down for saying there are biological differences between men and women. Because this is the fucked up reality we live in today, where such things are frowned upon. Sigh.

  9. You make good points, and about the modern-day aesthetics being applied, and I agree that the bulge would be raised for female armor. However, in a lot of fantasy armor it's so close to the body- and perfectly goes around the breasts. Thats not practical for deflecting at. all. Enemy takes a swing for your chest, hits middle breast, and its directed right towards the middle of your damn face. Thats just silly, I feel like that part wasn't adressed. You make a big point of practicality allowing creative freedom, but 90% of those artist renderings are not practical. And, as someone else said, so form fit to the body that there would be SUCH limited movement.

  10. Its true female armor are a modern construct. Since in our age female breasts are "fashion".
    In the middleage women needed to hide their breasts under cloths.
    Younger women who wanted to wear more tightfitted dresses and so called "hellwindows" were called out as "venom for the soul".
    Its only in our modern bra-age that women can show their shapes without being hated.

    Also…. Cleavage between a womans breasts comes from the late 1800 when the most sexy on her body was her butt.
    And since that could lead men to naughty thoughts they needed to wear long dresses, women started to push up their breasts in the shape of a full and pumped butt to get mens looks….

  11. The double bulged women armors are flawed in design as they can deflect the weapon into the center of the chest (heart) instead of away to the sides like the single bulged ones.

  12. In real life, I've hear female police officers complain about how uncomfortable bullet proof vests are. There are actually companies that make female body armor with a bit more boob-room up top.

    However, unlike medieval armor, modern ballistic body armor is worn tight against the body, so this would be more of an issue.

  13. So the little bulge on the crotch of armor is for pee. Its an extra bladder so u don't have to take your armor off to go pee.

  14. What I got from this is that boob armor has always been a thing, it was just worn by men in history so nobody noticed.
    Edit: holy crap, it’s like they made armor for women specifically and they were just like “nah, we’re good”

  15. Sponsored female armor by: Jenkin Williams
    Female armor?!!!!! Oh FLIP!
    I just keep watching this forever.
    So smite armor………
    The really thing is firing me.
    Boy, they sure have boob plate.
    Unisex has 500 power (or in boob plate)

  16. There is no female armour in history because 99,9% (probably more) of all women weren't up to the task of fighting, and they still aren't (there have never been and there still aren't any women in the Navy Seals, for example). Modern fantasy is just ridiculous and dishonest in this regard. It's disheartening to meet so many women who want to read about/see women fighting in fantasy, because they simply don't get that what they are worshipping in these fictional female characters is the traditional ideal picture of – the man.

  17. I think you are wrong on the slim waist. Back then having a larger waist was a sign of wealth (AKA Henry VIII). Only the rich were able to not have to really do any work and could afford to sit back and get fat. Most peasants and other working people were busy moving around and could not let their body store up the fat to get a belly

  18. I'm 100% certain when we brought up men were stronger than wemon a bunch of feminazis got triggered. I love how most of their arguments consists of "WE GAVE BIRTH TO YOU" like that shows how strong they were. It's one of their bodies functionalities. Men were stronger to protect, hunt and what not and wemon were care takers. Both side is very important and one can't survive without the other. Doesn't mean some wemon can't be stronger than men, look at some wemon boxers.

  19. "Why is there no FEMALE armor?" Well just because there were no female klights and warriors. Period

  20. Ya, if it wasn’t for T&A 98% of players (straight white males) wouldn’t ever choose a chick cuz they no longer have smaller hit box’s

  21. The breast separation is detrimental. Armor bring somewhat angled helps to deflect arrows that do not immediately penetrate off to the side, away from the body, but with the boobs being separate, a hit anywhere near the center that does not penetrate would guide the arrow directly to the center of the chest. This would also be the case with swords, axes, spears, etc. If you are trying to run someone through with a spear and you hit them slightly off to the side of the chest, on conventional armor, there is a good chance your spear will deflect off of the person and you will have to pull it back and try again or have your spear grabbed by the person you were trying to stab. With separate armor for each tit, you are directing that spear into the center of the chest whereupon, more force from the person holding the spear will either penetrate your armor and kill you or at the very least put you on the ground. No chest armor should ever have the center be not the part that sticks out the furthest. Any armor that separated the tits like that would be solely for decoration, like for a queen/princess that wanted to look legit on the battlefield while being far enough away from the action at all times to where the armor would never be used. It was only aesthetic to the point where it was still functional.

  22. Whoever made Polish subtitles, thank you!! Love this channel in English but od course subtitles are very helpful.

  23. Glad to hear someone unafraid to give the facts about how men are different than women in appearance, physicality, personality and in their rolls in society. Facts are facts.

  24. I believe that there were probably many female knights throughout the Middle Ages, history has just forgotten about them.

  25. Well, women were rarely ever seen in battle so there was no need to make "female form" specific armors and if they were put into combat for some reason, they would just wear armor made for men, most likely leather armor with chain pieces. Making a "female form" armor would require extra working for blacksmith and it would serve no other purpose then looks, so if some "female" armors were made like that they were most likely ceremonial. Also keep in mind that full plate mails were very heavy and expensive, so they weren't employed all that often. Most of the ancient and medieval soldiers tend to have leather armors with chainmail underneath to protect from arrows because it was much lighter and didn't put extra weight on horses.

    Fantasy is … well fantasy, so you can add bunch of things without questions. I don't mind "female form" armors in fantasy setting, but I always found "bikini armor" bit irritating because it broke immersion for me, so even if I had female character I would always put "realistic" armor on her. But I think "bikini armor" is overblown by *certain groups*, if you look closely they show up mainly in Japanese games because Japan doesn't give a shit about Twitter outrage mob. For all the talk about bikini armors, I can't recall that many games use them, at least from those I use to play (old school rpgs like BG, IWD, NWN, M&M, etc)

  26. One of the main reasons why women weren't sent to battle is risk of dying. I know, men died too, but women were the ones who would repopulate lost men, and there was already a huge risk factor of women (technically girls) dying in childbirth. In fact it was a very common reason why women died young – childbirth. So that's a double risk a women might die, not including death by infection post-battle and direct axe-to-the-head scenarios. Also letting women fight big ass dudes will be very risky as they will most likely get easily overpowered by brute strength no matter what feminist like to say.

    remember back then, there wasn't whole lot of people in let's say Europe and repopulation after huge wars took a lot of time, for which you needed women, who were always at coin flip whatever or not they will survive during childbirth. Also keep in mind that back then, "women" were actually girls age 12-15 who were married and giving birth, so lot of times they died in childbirth because their bodies could not survive the strain + potential infection.

  27. Found this while frantically looking for any evidence of plua size female fantasy armor… Veey disappointed actually 😞

  28. Joke:
    During Hundred Year War,
    Reaction of English Soldiers when they see a regular French women in plate armor: Pfft LOL
    Reaction of English Soldiers when they see Joan of Arc: Oh Sh**, RUN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  29. The reason certain African tribes put plates into the lips of their women were to make them unattractive to Muslim slave traders.  By disfiguring their daughters they made them less appealing & therefore less likely to be taken as harem sex slaves.

  30. Shad: "Boob armor."
    Me: "Do you want a broken sternum and the enemy's sword getting caught between your boobs? Because that's how you break your sternum and direct swords to the center of your chest as opposed to away from vital organs."

    There's a reason boob armor never existed. Not just because of the patriarchy, but because it's antithetical to the concept of protective armor, and spits in the face of physics.

  31. The first few minutes was just him trying not to get demonized he could have easily said that

    Those chest plates got tiddies

  32. So basically you could pierce easily the center of a female chest armor if it is boob shaped like in games.

    Also, if it were for females to fight alongside men in boob shaped armor, they would be easily spotted on the battlefield and the enemy would emphasize striking them first.

  33. It's good that you make the point about aesthetics. Even if specifically female armor had existed in the Middle Ages, it would have looked much different to fantasy armor because the ideal medieval woman had smaller breasts than her modern counterpart while her waist was broader.

  34. In ancient art, amazons are depicted wearing the same armor as men. Female gladiators did exist historically, and they apparently were equipped the same as men.

  35. Hello Shad, it is a bit time and place specific, but you might want to do a bit of research about Spain. They were having mercenaries in big cities in early 14th century and those groups frequently included fighting women, and even laws incorporated fighting women at the time (there wasn't much plate armour then, so you might want to know what happened later than is the period I know 🙂 )
    Beside that… let's say that female specific armour in the breast area… would be in my opinion significantly less likely to deflect lances and projectiles (which is one of the best advantages of plate armour) – and therefore it would be probably a far less suitable design (except for parading 😀 )

  36. I re-watched this video and it just occurred to me would it be a design flaw for the Boob armor with the two individual cups like at 13:18, if a sword (Or many weapons really) hit one of the cups and was driven towards the sternum and then drive the weapon up the chest into the helmet. It seems like it wouldn't be too hard to do that, the normal bulge angles strikes away from the helmet if you were to strike up…but not the boob armor.

  37. So, I was thinking about the female form, as I often do for one reason or another, and it struck me as unfortunate that those women who are well endowed suffer inordinately from back pains due to the extra weight on their chest. Even with supportive undergarments, they must still carry the extra weight on their shoulders, and that too causes pain after a time. It was while considering this sad reality when I heard on one of these videos, I can't recall which, that armor is crimped at the waist because the weight was supported at the hips, and not the shoulders. This decreases the fatigue that the knight might experience from prolonged use.

    For whatever reason, these two ideas collided together in my brain with the idea of boob plate armor, and then it hit me: What if a particularly well endowed lady-knight commissioned a smith to make her a set of boob plate armor for the express purpose of supporting the weight of her bust on her hips? Put aside the fact that athletic women usually have smaller breasts on average(or am I just making that up?), and you would have a legitimate functional reason to design your breastplate with individual breast cavities, or even just one big chest cavity. This might make the armor ever so slightly less efficient at deflecting some strikes, but the benefit that would be gained by such a design might increase the longevity of the lady knight's endurance. While it might not be historical, I can't help but wonder if it might not be practical in such a setting where women did often fight in armor.

  38. Another reason for the "wasp thin waist" was for the distribution of weight. Instead of heaving all the armor pulling down on your shoulders it's more evenly distributed by also resting on the waist. Also in fencing women wear a protective breastplate underneath the jacket that is very breast-shaped, not that this adds to or contradicts anything from your lecture. So great video, I hadn't considered the historical aesthetics preferences as applied to armor.

  39. 08:41 There's honestly a lot to talk about regarding division of labour in most cultures. It's true that testosterone equips you to build muscle mass more easily so men on average are stronger. And we know that trained soldiers in history must have been astonishingly strong by our modern standards. Tod's Workshop has that wonderful video about arrows vs plate in which their archer is shooting a 160lb bow and says he can do that all day– that's impressively strong. But that's what happens when you're trained to shoot a bow from childhood. That's pretty normal for an historical longbowman. So women archers shooting those huge longbows? Probably not.

    But, purely discussing biology– a woman who lifts is going to be stronger than a man who doesn't. A woman who works out may still be stronger than a man who works out, depending on their focuses and natural talent. My cousin holds the current title of county strong woman– she's pulling trucks kind of strong. And I've met some incredible women through power lifting who can match male lifters weight for weight.

    Still discussing biology, there are other factors at play too. Oestrogen makes you surprisingly durable– women typically have more endurance, higher pain tolerance, and recover faster. Weight for weight they need less rest between sets. Oestrogen makes you recover from injury faster and gives you a stronger immune system– increasing the likelihood of surviving wounds and infection and living to see another battle.

    And in a fight, well, yes– you probably wouldn't put your women among the archers. You wouldn't put them in positions where raw strength counted for everything. But you don't need to be terrifically strong to stick a dagger in a warrior wearing full plate, you need to be lucky and get the opportunity. Skill counts for more when you wield a rapier. A woman with a spear can still stick you. A woman on a horse can still ride you down. Even a lighter bow will still kill you just as dead if you're a peasant who can't afford armor.

    And those other advantages are quite real. It's possible a woman would have an edge in a long battle, recovering faster and finding the endurance to continue a little longer. With a higher body fat, women survive starvation longer, but also require less food on a long march.

    So– why haven't women been fighters in most cultures?

    Well, women fighters do exist. We have many historical records of women warriors, and they're just the ones we know about and about whom information survived in the historical record. There's a long history of women dressing as men so they could join wars and fight for causes they believed in, and we typically don't know their names or numbers because they were undercover at the time.

    But as a society? Culturally? Women haven't been the fighters. And that's division of labour for you. It's both less fair and more practical than "women don't want to fight and aren't as strong": in a pre-industrial culture, things take a ridiculously long time.

    Food production alone takes up much of the average person's time. I recommend the Townsends video about the differences between a modern and an historical kitchen for a demonstration of that. Before electric stovetops and fridges, cooking food requires you to take hours to light a fire and get it to temperature, stay there keeping the fire at temperature the entire time, prepare things by hand, spend hours processing and preserving the food you do have…

    Add to that farming, animal husbandry, looking after children, making textiles and clothing (hugely time consuming!), house maintenance, and any business ventures you run…. you're a busy woman.

    Someone has to stay and do that stuff or everyone starves. And since you're the one birthing the next generation, it's probably going to be you, not least because if you die, your community loses a lot in potential child labour. (Big families are your pre industrial productivity hack.)

    In fantasy I think the Malazan books do one of the best jobs at building a culture where it's totally normal to have women soldiers. The Malazan empire is industrialised enough to ensure quicker mass food production and shared domestic labour. Its army is standing, not drafted, so they can train soldiers to specialise. And most importantly, battle is chaos, survival is mostly luck, and if a woman sticks you in the face with a sword you're just as dead.

  40. Okeeee.
    I´m confused.

    an armor-video from Shad. And he´s not talking about the Gambeson?
    After all a Gambeson really needs no modification at all to fit´s a female.
    Same for Chainmail, Scalemail, and Brigantinas and stuff…

  41. truth be told….. even if a society existed where men and women fought equally on the battlefield….. it's not likely armor types would be all that different. considering the cost of the local blacksmith to make armors that cater to both genders separately…… it'd be more time/cost effective to just buy a standard set of armor that'd fit most anyone's body type rather than extra to accent one's individual form…….
    not saying that it wouldn't happen in such a hypothetical society…. obviously the wealthy/nobility would have custom armors and all…. hell joan of arc would have her titties displayed proudly in steel i'm sure, but again. only the rich would have it. the average infantry man/woman would have a plain set that isn't gender specific

  42. I have an other explanation as to why females are historically less likely to be a fighter. You can't afford to loose them. Young males, that are not heirs, don't bring a lot to a community. They first have to make a place for themselves before they start to contribute. Young women can be used as cheap labour or be married of and contribute within the existing social structure. They are basically securing the next generation. You see it in most social primate species. The females stay in the group while the young males are cast out and form bachelor groups, which are often fighting a lot.

  43. la protección pectoral en forma de un único domo en el vientre o de una sola punta, (colo lo muestran en el video) es para desviar el corte del arma al pecho.

    ¿porque le ponen ahora sostén ajustados?, no tiene lógica, XD
    Una armadura debe ser maciza, funcional para defensa.
    No tiene sentido el acabado estético de fantasía

    Sera porque el las chicas sensuales son parte de la publicidad, ja, ja, ja.

    Buen vídeo.

  44. hello, I am suggesting a sword, here! https://www.amazon.com/BladesUSA-HK-741-Fantasy-27-Inch-Overall/dp/B00CBRTAUG/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=twin+swords&qid=1569019812&s=gateway&sr=8-1

  45. You should always take a culture's representation of itself with a grain of salt. Chivalry was a cultural ideal that almost nobody seriously tried to live up to. Imagine a society run by the Bloods and the Crips and you've got a pretty good picture of what the medieval aristocracy was like before the early modern emergence of central state power. So the idea that knights protected the weak is largely a fiction. Knights protected the strong.

    As for men being naturally more competitive and aggressive than women, if you've seen high level women's basketball or tennis that's not very plausible. Sure, the average for men may be higher, although whether that is biological or cultural is hard to say. But the bell curves definitely overlap a great deal. The Dahomey Amazons of Benin were notoriously ferocious, although culturally they were considered "men" after disemboweling their first enemy.

    The real biological reason for men being predominant in primitive combat is upper body strength. The effectiveness of primitive weapons is highly dependent upon upper body strength. Even today maybe 10% of women could qualify for infantry positions, the most low-tech form of combat still in existence. However women have excelled in guerrilla warfare, e.g. in the Kurdish PKK.

    A fantasy world in which women took a significant role in combat would mostly likely be a lot like the modern military, in which a few roles are effectively reserved for men, whether or not there's a rule forbidding women. Armor for women would likely reflect their particular roles. In some cases, as with the Dahomey Amazons, the might not wear armor at all

  46. Somehow, Shadiversity keeps me interested in topics that I don’t generally follow or care about. Thanks for broadening my education.

  47. In some ways this seems practical for a female wearing armor,but it also seems not very efficient at all because that design seems to weaken the chestplate since it's harder to secure a spherical area

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *