How many more fantasy women have to die? |
Wow!
So
my article yesterday on world and character building generated a lot of
comments. Not on world or character
building, but instead on my off-handed remarks concerning breasts on
breastplates.
I
loved it.
Not
just because breasts are a wonderful topic (they are), but because it
highlights exactly what I was talking about in regards to world and character
creation. Also, I really love doing
research on these kinds of things, and then discussing that researching with
like-minded folk. It helps me in my own
character and world creation.
So
let's get started!
Nice breasts on a bad breastplate. |
Through
the lens of our modern culture, it would seem that armorers, working on female
armor, should make such an allowance for a woman’s breasts. First, because, well, they’re breasts and
like all things feminine, they shouldn’t be treated like a man’s. Second, of course, they’re breasts and why
not show them off!
This
misses the mark, exactly because we’re a modern culture so far removed from a
time and place of armed men (and women) who wore armor because it meant the
difference between life and death.
So
let’s look at the breastplate. I won’t
take you through a whole history lesson of development and different versions
(partly because I only know a fraction of the information and can’t be bothered
to track down the rest). Suffice to say
even ancient man understood that getting a sharp stick or piece of metal stuck
in your vitals was bad. Downright
detrimental. Unhealthy even.
Note: Gambeson lacks penis bulge. |
To
compensate for the lack of natural armor, humans started covering up the soft,
fleshy bits with cloth, leather, wood and eventually metal. This culminated in all kinds of various
armored bits, including our subject, the breastplate. The best designs of a
breastplate are convex, meaning they bulge outward like Santa’s belly. This provides the strongest shape of armor,
distributing the force of any blow away from the center, and resulting in more
glancing blows.
With
that in mind, it should be understood that plate armor was never worn by
itself. At least if you wanted to keep
the skin on your bones. Most armor
wasn't custom tailored, but even armor that was would be bigger than the
average man-at-arms (bigger being preferable to smaller, which would cause all
kinds of mobility issues). It was also
made out of metal. Metal chaffs. Like a lot.
And not in a good way. To
compensate for this, layers of clothing would be wor
n, usually a padded leather
jacket or gambeson (rich, customized armor would have already taken these
layers into account). Once the padding
is in place, unless the lady in question was extremely busty, all chests are essentially
rendered equal. Even an extremely busty
warrior-woman, wearing a proper gambeson, would only be slightly more “chesty”
than her male counterparts (provided her male counterparts aren’t Arnold
Schwartenegger in his Pumping Iron years).
Any compensation needed in armor, especially breast cups, are rendered
unnecessary.
Get that man a breastplate, stat! |
Now those are some dangerous curves. |
The
other thought toward breast compensation (as you can read from either this link
or this one) is that breasts on a breast plate negate the entire point of the
armor. Instead of shearing off the force of a weapon to either side, away from
the vital central region, those lovely metal spheres create a wedge pointed
straight at the center of the wearer's chest. Any force that hits the breasts
will now smash that wedge into the chest, damaging the very area it’s supposed
to protect. In fact, a man-at-arms
facing a woman-at-arms wearing a chesty breastplate would be at a distinct
advantage. He no longer would have to
find one of the chinks in her armor, she’d be wearing it. He only needs to smash her in her
breastplate, letting it do the damage for him.
So,
in short, while women warriors should wear armor, it should also make
sense. From a modern view, breastplate
breasts do, but from reality (where the woman wants to survive past round one),
they do not.
No comments:
Post a Comment