429 réponses à ce sujet

[Blue Gloves]

From what I know Volus Warlord's post is meant to be ironic.

 

So was mine- note the .

It was a joke.

[The Elder King]

So was mine- note the .
It was a joke.

Sorry, the smilies didn't load up when I quoted you.

[Blue Gloves]

Sorry, the smilies didn't load up when I quoted you.

 

No worries

[metatheurgist]

I don't think there's any reason why there'd be more spikes and giant pauldrons

Spikes might stop dragons from biting and ogres from picking you up, but I doubt that's what the designers were thinking.

[SerCambria358]

Spikes might stop dragons from biting and ogres from picking you up, but I doubt that's what the designers were thinking.

Sounds fine in theory, but it would be a hastle getting caught (branches, bushes, etc) on everything and no one can get near you

[metatheurgist]

^I'd put up with that if it meant not getting dragon spit on my face and ogre prints on my ass.

 

(And Broodmother hickeys...)

[AkiKishi]

lol armour

She spends a lot of time at sea and her combat style is based on mobility. Look at how pirates are dressed in history and she's not that different. 

[SerCambria358]

She spends a lot of time at sea and her combat style is based on mobility. Look at how pirates are dressed in history and she's not that different. 

They were dressed that way because gunpowder made armor pointless not because of a need for mobility while sailing. 

[AkiKishi]

They were dressed that way because gunpowder made armor pointless not because of a need for mobility while sailing. 

 

And because if you fell into the sea wearing armour you would drown. Soldiers were still wearing armour on land at the time. Even though gunpowder had made it less effective.

[SerCambria358]

And because if you fell into the sea wearing armour you would drown. Soldiers were still wearing armour on land at the time. Even though gunpowder had made it less effective.

Depends on the period you're speaking of, if we're speaking of the medieval era then they did have armor even "pirates", if we're speaking 17th-18th century then no, no one was using armor in any large numbers. If you're going into battle over seas, falling into the ocean is not your biggest concern. 

 

Edit: Medieval sea battle, they're wearing armor

Modifié par SerCambria358, 28 mai 2014 - 08:56 .

[Innsmouth Dweller]

realistic armour is pleasing to the eye... i groan everytime i see dragons or some other crap embossed on plates. uncovered belly? why? to have a better chance to hit unarmoured flesh? spikes on shoulders? to make it easier for the enemy to grab by it or just to limit vision? i'd love if they worked on armour stats more - like chainmail has nice piercing resistances, plate armour sucks when enemy is using crossbow, leather armour doesn't affect the speed and dodge chance. if one chooses to wear ceremonial plate - make sure it's heavy, awkward but has +10 to righteous glow or something and/or ladies dig it...

[AkiKishi]

Depends on the period you're speaking of, if we're speaking of the medieval era then they did have armor even "pirates", if we're speaking 17th-18th century then no, no one was using armor in any large numbers. If you're going into battle over seas, falling into the ocean is not your biggest concern. 

 

Edit: Medieval sea battle, they're wearing armor

 

And you can see them drowning although its unlikely they could swim anyway.You won't see pirates from the 16th century wearing armour even though it was still common at the time. 

[SerCambria358]

And you can see them drowning although its unlikely they could swim anyway.You won't see pirates from the 16th century wearing armour even though it was still common at the time. 

Nothing in these depictions suggests that armor is the reason they're drowning, thats if they even are drowning, you can see people trying to help one back on board while he's floating on his back. If drowning was such a big issue, they wouldnt bother with armor, plus who's to say some of them arent just dead and not drowning? Why wouldnt pirates wear armor if they had it in the 16th century? Evidence would suggest otherwise.

 

Isabellas outfit artistically may make sense to reflect her persona but it isnt practical nor reliable as a pirate. Even female pirates in reality didnt wear that sort of clothing. Nothing supports her outfit being a good idea in a practical sense

[AkiKishi]

That's just a painting. If you fall into water wearing metal, you sink. If on the other hand the soldiers can't swim anyway, wearing metal makes no difference.

 

Why is it not practical ? 

[fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb]

She spends a lot of time at sea and her combat style is based on mobility. Look at how pirates are dressed in history and she's not that different. 

 

Kirkwall didn't seem very wet

[SerCambria358]

That's just a painting. If you fall into water wearing metal, you sink. If on the other hand the soldiers can't swim anyway, wearing metal makes no difference.

 

Why is it not practical ? 

And why are paintings not legitimate sources of info? Wearing armor doesnt conclude that you will always sink, depends how much weight you have on you of course. Whether someone will drown wearing it or not is irrelevant though, pirates and others who fought on ships did wear armor if it was available.

 

Well for starters she has no pants which would be very uncomfortable for sailing doing labor, thigh high boots just dont do anything. The girdle she has would make it hard to breath. Its clear that its just to make her look "sexy" If you plan on sailing, that is not the choice of clothing anyone would choose let alone for combat.

[Deflagratio]

And why are paintings not legitimate sources of info? Wearing armor doesnt conclude that you will always sink, depends how much weight you have on you of course. Whether someone will drown wearing it or not is irrelevant though, pirates and others who fought on ships did wear armor if it was available.

 

Well for starters she has no pants which would be very uncomfortable for sailing doing labor, thigh high boots just dont do anything. The girdle she has would make it hard to breath. Its clear that its just to make her look "sexy" If you plan on sailing, that is not the choice of clothing anyone would choose let alone for combat.

 

 

Can I get a "wut wut" for Yara(Asha) Greyjoy's pirate armor??

Spoiler

[AkiKishi]

And why are paintings not legitimate sources of info? Wearing armor doesnt conclude that you will always sink, depends how much weight you have on you of course. Whether someone will drown wearing it or not is irrelevant though, pirates and others who fought on ships did wear armor if it was available.

 

Well for starters she has no pants which would be very uncomfortable for sailing doing labor, thigh high boots just dont do anything. The girdle she has would make it hard to breath. Its clear that its just to make her look "sexy" If you plan on sailing, that is not the choice of clothing anyone would choose let alone for combat.

 

No trust me on this, you wear plate armour you sink like a stone. Paintings are not really to be taken literally.

 

Shes a pirate captain. I doubt she does much grunt work. Why does she need pants ? What function do pants serve ? Perhaps the thigh boots do much the same as pants as far as keeping her legs from getting scratched and protecting from splinters. 

 

Depends how tight the girdle is tied, if its not overtight, its a version of light armour protecting the vitals.

[SerCambria358]

No trust me on this, you wear plate armour you sink like a stone. Paintings are not really to be taken literally.

 

Shes a pirate captain. I doubt she does much grunt work. Why does she need pants ? What function do pants serve ? Perhaps the thigh boots do much the same as pants as far as keeping her legs from getting scratched and protecting from splinters. 

 

Depends how tight the girdle is tied, if its not overtight, its a version of light armour protecting the vitals.

Plate armor isnt the only armor that exists and besides it is possible to swim with armor, the distribution of weight will allow you to swim though it'll be very exhausting. Staying still will make you sink most likely but you can swim in a suit of armor. Paintings are a major source of information, they can definitely be taken literally, otherwise you might want to tell historians they're wrong.

 

You just answered the your own question however thigh high boots are purely for fashion doing anything laborious is pointless when you can just put on pants.

 

Since when did were girdles used as armor? Lets assume it is armor, the only think it protects is her sides and back, might as well not have anything at all. Making an argument that her outfit is in any way practical and not optimized to accentuate her features is not going to work.

[Cankiie]

I don't really care either way. Give me platekinis, over-sized armor, whatever.

 

I just do want some armour that looks cool.

[SerCambria358]

No trust me on this, you wear plate armour you sink like a stone. Paintings are not really to be taken literally.

 

Shes a pirate captain. I doubt she does much grunt work. Why does she need pants ? What function do pants serve ? Perhaps the thigh boots do much the same as pants as far as keeping her legs from getting scratched and protecting from splinters. 

 

Depends how tight the girdle is tied, if its not overtight, its a version of light armour protecting the vitals.

 

Hope this can end the swimming with armor issue

[AkiKishi]

 

Hope this can end the swimming with armor issue

 

Not without knowing what gauge and what it was made of. Even if you take it as is, it's still a very short clip which may or may not make a difference. I'd say BS anyway since they are not wearing armour as intended for combat. 

 

I've given you practical reasons for the boots and girdle so whats wrong with her outfit?

[Ieldra]

If I may reiterate my opinion on the question asked by the OP:

Artistic license should end where function would be adversely affected. That leaves quite a bit of leeway, but some things which are unfortunately rather common simply shouldn't be done. If I see one more woman who's supposed to be a warrior with exposed vitals, it will be once too often. The thing many artists are unwilling to accept is this: If it's armor, it rules out certain kinds of "sexy". The concepts of protecting your skin from enemies and exposing it for titillation are simply not compatible. Accept it and use other ways to make things look good.

Also, as for not wearing armor: anyone who regularly enters combat will wear something protective, even if it's just padded clothing. You only don't wear anything protective if you don't expect to get into a fight. So exposed skin, basically anywhere but the face, shouldn't be done.

[SerCambria358]

Not without knowing what gauge and what it was made of. Even if you take it as is, it's still a very short clip which may or may not make a difference. 

 

I've given you practical reasons for the boots and girdle so whats wrong with her outfit?

You dont need to know what it is made of unless you're suggesting its a faked video. Point is you can still swim with armor, someone as good of a swimmer as isabella would have no issue getting back on her ship. What does the clips length do, we saw the results just fine.

 

And i've told you why those reasons dont make sense. Boots that high would only restrict movement and have only been used for fashion the girdle does not act as armor and assuming it did for the sake of proving my next point, it only covers her sides. her entire chest/heart is open. Makes more sense to wear pants, which would not restrict movement and wear leather armor which would protect more than just her sides

[Aimi]

And why are paintings not legitimate sources of info? Wearing armor doesnt conclude that you will always sink, depends how much weight you have on you of course. Whether someone will drown wearing it or not is irrelevant though, pirates and others who fought on ships did wear armor if it was available.

Paintings are legitimate sources of information, but they're not true-to-life ones or wholly representative ones.

You're showing a picture of the Battle of Sluys (not actually a painting, but a miniature from one of the contemporary histories of the war), the engagement that is said to have begun the Hundred Years' War. It was a close-in fight with not a lot of maneuver and mostly consisted of boarding actions (to the point where I believe many commenters have described it as a 'naval battle on land'). Under those circumstances, it would make sense to have a lot of guys armoring up, and indeed they seem to have done so; the Plantagenets are supposed to have loaded their ships up with men-at-arms and archers. That's not really a representative naval battle, and it certainly doesn't seem to bear many similarities to contemporary piracy.

The painting of Sluys that you show certainly depicts the armored men-at-arms in the Plantagenet fleet, along with the armored marines that the French brought along. It doesn't really show the archers, which are recorded to have been equally crucial to the Plantagenet victory. But that's not really the point: the creator of the miniature appears to have wanted to get across the idea that Sluys was a brutal, messy, close-in slugfest fought in sight of land, which it was, and the miniature depicts that quite well. Total accuracy about all aspects of the engagement, and about naval warfare in general, aren't as important.

So I wouldn't draw any conclusions about Isabela's attire and its plausibility based purely on the Sluys miniature.

---

Also, based on an earlier comment: gunpowder did not and does not make armor 'pointless'. Armor did not disappear from militaries after the adoption of firearms. And although it became dramatically less popular, this was (not entirely) a consequence of gunpowder weapons, but rather a cornucopia of causes including difficulty of manufacture, the expense to the state of maintaining professional armies, and tactical factors such as a decrease in battlefield visibility.

It's also worth pointing out that armor has been making a comeback among infantry in the last fifty years, precisely to protect against the small-arms fire that supposedly makes armor pointless.