[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/tg/ - Traditional Games

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
[ERROR] No.33800682 [DELETED]  [Reply] [Original] [4plebs] [archived.moe]

How do you prefer your fantasy warrior women /tg/?

Do you enjoy having some sort of plain and practical ~realism~ or the fem fatale bikini armored princess?

>> No.33800733

I like em plain and practical. But I like everytinh plain and practical.

>> No.33800751

somewhere inbetween

>> No.33800778

practical when in combat/on adventure
and actually feminine when chillin
and with an appropriate build for what they do

Mirtai in the Elenium/Tamuli is the best example i can think of right now

>> No.33800810

Depends on setting. Chainmail bikini is usually annoying even in silly ones though. Boobplate can be excused.

7/10 times I prefer realistic. Brienne is a good example. I also have a boner for subverting tropes so ugly and stacked females are fun.

>> No.33800828


If it's a gritty setting revolving around historical events the first one, in fantasy settings based after R.E.Howard-type sword&sorcery it's the latter.

>> No.33800842

Practical is the best. They don't all have to be Brienne of Tarth, of course, but having people who fight look like fighters is only good sense.

>> No.33800849

Everything should be practical and useful. But where possible and feasible, things can be ornate, too. Like pic related.

>> No.33800866


>> No.33800867

I tend to enjoy everything on the far extreme of the scale.

That said I like them setting appropriate.

>> No.33800871

Chainmail bikini hits me right in the autism. Also, if I wanted porn, I woudn't be playing D&D. So yeah, I go for more relaism.

>> No.33800883

Neither. Chainmail bikini is too silly, practical warrior women is an oxymoron.

Boobplate all the way.

>> No.33800904

Pic related

>> No.33800912

This girl won a tournament, so I think she's a good example.

>> No.33800931

Considering my unhealthy obsession with the Maid of Orleans, that should answer the question.

>> No.33803652


I think both have their place in the kitchen. Erm I mean, in fiction.

Seriously though, it depends on context and overall tone of the story.

>> No.33803789

As realistic as possible really.

I am not one for manic pixie dream girls, or anime happy girls.

Good inspirations are the Israeli women soldiers.

>> No.33803846

>Do you enjoy having some sort of plain and practical ~realism

Fuck no. Realism is the very worst thing.

That's without even getting into the argument that "realistic warrior woman" is an oxymoron.

>> No.33803922

I'll take whatever suits the setting really, but I'll default to effectively copying historical wargear if left to my own devices.

Drag her ass to Skunks or Swordfish and we'll see if she's good.

>> No.33804054

>Warrior women.
No that never happened anon. It's either propaganda or urban myth.

>> No.33804104

Prepare for the rustling

>> No.33804167

Either medium to light armor relying on ranged combat and flanking akin to pic related or proper Slavic best of a woman - think female version of Smough from Dark Souls.

>> No.33804191

All these edgelords.


I'll just leave this here.

>> No.33804207

well, there was khawlah bint al-azwar

>> No.33804211

Smough has fat tits anyway. How would a female version make any difference?

>> No.33804240

>How do you prefer your fantasy warrior women /tg/?
If there's gonna be something as fantastic and unrealistic as warrior women then I want them santily clad with big tits and fit bodies.

>> No.33804266


Think again, anon.

>> No.33804281

that seem to be ignoring the fact he is a giraffe

>> No.33804295


This nigga.

>> No.33804309

Super fake. Smough was the fattest shit in all of Anor Londo.

captcha: fitfel caitiff

>> No.33804339

Tarmashirin Khan used female archers

>> No.33804359

Well, there's a good point buried under a totally obnoxious writing style

>> No.33804364

Archers aren't proper warriors. That's like calling a cav scout or an artyman a real soldier.

>> No.33804371


False if you take Gwynevere's fake cowtits into consideration.

>> No.33804406

aside from the fact that you do call artillerymen actual soldiers, there was also tomoe gozen, who fought in the genpei wars.

>> No.33804407


>> No.33804417

It really depends on the kind of warrior they are. If they're a knightly or soldierly type I'd generally put them in reasonable heavy armor. Dodge-happy duelist sorts might wear something more daring, and of course berserkers are quite likely to go to war wearing the traditional barbarian loincloth. Plus some kind of top, maybe.
Really, it's all a question of style, same as with male warriors.

>> No.33804424

oops kind of abused commas in there.

>> No.33804451 [DELETED] 


I've been wanting to go to a larp for a long time ever since I saw some larpers in a field near my university. I wanted to wear a armor outfit made around something like http://www.larpinn.co.uk/gyda-female-leather-armour-brownred-medium-p-4348.html but I'm not sure how accepting larps are of women wearing armor, especially if it's not realistic enough. I didn't see any girls there at the larp I saw and people on /tg/ seem hostile about it. Plus I can't actually fight at all so I might just go to hang out and meet people. But I totally love real warrior women like Boadicea and Jeanne d'Arc. Jeanne inspired me to go back to college and get a biochemistry degree even though I've been told many times that women can't do science and math.

>> No.33804473

Cute girls in cute armor.

Can you identify all the features that make this a girls armor? There's a lot.

>> No.33804492


Onna bugeisha.

>> No.33804496

The head on his helmet isn't where Smoughs face is... there's a clear slit under the head where his eyes were, because he didnt have an animal theme he was a headsman (executioner)

ehh... ehh... geddit?

>> No.33804509

Nonsense, those were as real as the rest of her!

>> No.33804515 [SPOILER] 

I like 'em human

>> No.33804535

>girls armor
>there could have been such thing as crossdressing samurai

>> No.33804542

>Tarmashirin Khan
Source? I just can't find anything about it.

>> No.33804560

Nuh uh, look at the hands

>> No.33804663

Reading this made me realize I'm a misogynist. And I'm okay with that.

>> No.33804679

Never be ashamed of who you are

>> No.33804696

That's not how you spell femme fatale.

>> No.33804712

Unless you're black

>> No.33804726


>> No.33804733

Alright, now that's inappropriate.

>> No.33804760


>> No.33804981

>Non magical and not for show?
Think standard medieval armor
>Show armor?
Rule of cool armor.
Looks neat and uses a bit of magic to negate any weaknesses it may have, but tends to the realistic with a few things to accent appearance, though the line tends to be a bit blurred with the next category
>Magical armor?
Can range from ornate and slightly impractical looking armor to a padded silk shirt (or underwear) that can stop a balista bolt on any part of the body or even stranger things like a flowing gown of water or body paint.
Really depends on how magical and what it's for, most enchanted armor is just as much a status statement to be worn in public as protection and it's not commonly accepted most places to go clanking around in full plate everywhere.
Low end usually looks like very ornate show armor.
Higher end stuff probably doesn't even look like armor (and may not even fall under the category of clothes, the modest make sure to wear something else along with it).
>High end war armor?
Magical power armor, think pilot-able war golem. Some can't even be moved without the magic

>> No.33805342

I enjoy all forms of armor, practical, impractical, exotic, ornate, simple, sensible, utilitarian, rough, piecemeal and more. I enjoy loincloth clothed barbarians with giant swords, red martian women in tiny ornate plates that cover their privates and nothing else, fully clad warriors, ragged leather and fur armors, realistic chain mail clad warriors, non-bootplate armored women, and boobplate armored women, chainmail bikinis and rugged madmen with an axe skipping nude through their corpses of their enemies.

It's all good, in the proper place and context.

Nothing is forbidden in my eyes.

>> No.33805352

>How do you prefer your fantasy warrior women /tg/?

>> No.33805798

sword n sorcery fan, give me all the chainmail bikinis

>> No.33806022

Damn straight, as soon as we start going "Muh realism" we can start asking questions like "Why is it a woman fighter" or "How does plate stop a 300 ton tarrasque from ripping you apart.

>> No.33806036

Whatever is appropriate to the culture or how they were trained.

>> No.33806059

Pretty women in pretty armour.

I think realistic armour is often quite pretty.

>> No.33806099

As long as they can swing a weapon and kill people they can wear whatever the fuck they want.

>> No.33806123

I like both, although if plate clad brianna of Tarth is standing next to chain mail bikini Erza scarlett it would be odd

>> No.33806164

Sacrens say otherwise. 20% of their armies were chicks.

>> No.33806191

Isn't she like, the one girl the bard never tried to sex because he never realized she was a girl?
she so wants the bard's d

>> No.33806243

And what happened to Scarens?

>> No.33806275

Unless you like snuff pornography.
Then you should just kill yourself. Everyone wins!

>> No.33806280

My favourite is "Moustache trimmed to elegant pencil-length"

>> No.33806308

The same thing that happened to the Spartans, the Athenians, the Jews, the Romans, the Eastern Romans, the Holy Romans, the Ottomen claiming to be Romans, and just about every other historical group: they got killed by another one.

>> No.33806314

With short hair and dress blues

>> No.33806357

Don't forget Birth Control Glasses.

>> No.33806601

>Sacrens say otherwise
What? Do you mean Saracens? Which Saracens? Saracen is just a vague medieval term for Muslim. If you're talking about a semi-nomadic force it often becomes very difficult to define who is and is not a combatant. See the Mongol hordes for example: is everyone with a bow on horseback a warrior?

I really wanted to like this article but it's very poorly written and frankly kind of obnoxious. What is it with progressive liberals and taking every opportunity to talk about their personal lives irrespective of the topic. Nobody fucking cares.

She makes a number of good points and a number of mistakes - for example the article she linked to about Vikings was simply talking about Danish women settling in the North of England.

The main thing to know about warfare and women in most of history is that fighting wars has been a relatively exclusive activity. In comparison to the huge citizen armies of the early 20th century most armies have taken up a much smaller percentage of the population and was mostly fought by elites.

That some women would participate in this is not surprising since it's really difficult to stop rich people from doing stupid shit if they really want to.

When you have larger armies the barrier to entry is lowered so more people slip through the cracks (see women turning up in the British navy because press gangers don't give a fuck).

>> No.33806676

I'm sad people feel the need to make this a contest. Fantasy is diverse enough to allow for cool and realistic in some settings, and stupid and sexy in other settings. Can't we just get along?

>> No.33806680

They mobilised for war once they realised the Peace Keepers lacked wormhole weapons, but the Peace Keepers struck the first blow and then mind control bullshit happened.

>> No.33806736

I like both the men and women shredded and wearing minimal armor. Everyone is Conan & Red Sonja

>> No.33806775

Why not both? In a sitcom where they share an apartment and go on adventures despite their different lifestyle that airs on ABC.

>> No.33806788

What do you think, faggot?

>> No.33806808

I was actually getting confused and referring to the Scythians.

>> No.33806996

>That webm
Holy shit anime what the fuck are you doing?

>> No.33807079

Refer to my comments regarding hordes then. I'd be interested to read your source though - especially regarding the 20% figure. I'm aware that they dug up some burials of Scythian women with a lot of decent equipment but burials can be pretty misleading due to ceremonial items. For example, Elizabeth I of England had a magnificent suit of armor and lots of swords, but she wasn't exactly a warrior. Given that the burials were IIRC obviously belonging to some fairly wealthy people it's difficult to say much other than "they thought it would be cool to be buried with weapons".

>> No.33807168

>is everyone with a bow on horseback a warrior?


>> No.33807335

This. Anyone who limits themselves to a single range of aesthetic is just making their own lives less fun

>> No.33807358

Hell both in the same setting.

>> No.33807377

You think that's silly?

>> No.33807392

fucking highschool of the dead. why are her tits moving so fast

>> No.33807468

Every time I see that I start seething in rage. Didn't the math turn out that her boobs were moving at like, 700 mph?

>> No.33807551

moribito series protagonist balsa,
famous among those wielding spears

>> No.33807556

Then they're all warriors. All of them. Even the ones that never fought. Even the ones that were hundreds of miles from the fighting and never had any intention of getting involved.

Combatant/non-combatant gets complicated when everyone in a society has the tools and training to potentially be useful on a battlefield. Certainly it doesn't mean what it tends to mean to us.

>> No.33807605

Also best mother figure a kid could possibly hope for

>> No.33807620

God, I can't stand this. Why can't everyone be like Kojima and do extensive research on how breasts work?

>> No.33807631


You telling me you've never limboed your penis under a bullet?

>> No.33807681

I prefer my warrior women muscular and clad in armor. What kind of armor is irrelevant. It's the easiest way to hide my fetish.

>> No.33807736

I hate to state the obvious but;
Kojima does do nice boobs though.

>> No.33807784

My boys.

Women in functional, practical and plain armour makes my dick feel nice.

>> No.33807801

>Not Feora
>Not Makeda
Does she even Engine of Destruction?

>> No.33807804

>It's the easiest way to hide my fetish.
Everyone knows.

They've always known.

>> No.33807859

No true Scotsman, etc etc.

>> No.33807915

>Archers aren't proper warriors
What are samurai?

>> No.33807935

Why not both?

>> No.33807956

Yeah sure, but when the suspension of disbelief is that high you gotta say something.

>> No.33808081

Fuck yeah Terminal Lance

>> No.33808132

And the Huns.

>> No.33808133

Well, feminism was started by well-off rich women

>> No.33808136

I dunno, I found nothing objectionable about her writing style. It's different and perhaps a little passionate, but it is not a bad read in my opinion.

>> No.33808172

We can't forget the motherfucking Mongols, either.

>> No.33808180

>implying that's weirdest boner
>implying I don't know exactly why I have this boner

>> No.33808565

I dislike the use of "we" in the title. The author is not a 16th century onna bugeisha. I hate it when people conflate themselves with historical groups with whom they share no culture. It comes across as extremely pretentious.

Imagine if I, as a non-Chinese with no Chinese lineage, described the Great Wall as something "we" built. You'd tell me to fuck off, and rightly so.

The tone of the piece in general is overly self-interested. She's writing about interesting things, why does this have to be about her personal narrative? It's kind of narcissistic. Unfortunately these days you see it even in documentaries so it might just be the fashion on the day.

I also disagree with her on the state of history education in the West: we place heavy emphasis on women and minorities but we are teaching history and so the sources we have are somewhat limited. So you have a bizarre would where every child knows Joan of Arc but has no idea about the 100 years war, every one knows who Catherine the Great was but nobody has heard of Ivan the Terrible. She says that the histories of the Dowager Cixi have been erased but I'd wager more people have heard of her than any other member of the Imperial household with perhaps the exception of the First Emperor. Wherever women are obviously present in the historical record they are extremely well represented.

>> No.33808594

Its not like they are realistic anyway.
I have them be as fabulous as the male counterparts, so bikini platemail is on the conservative side.

>> No.33808600

Not that guy, but you can find other examples of women taking up the sword and using it to some degree, not restricted to purely ceremonial purposes.

Freydis Eiriksdottir, for example. After the men were routed by some Skraelings, she picked up a sword and beat her breasts with it, scaring the attacking Native Americans away. I'm not sure if that counts as actual fighting, but there it is.

Here's another thing, from Wikipedia:

" Byzantine historian Johannes Skylitzes records that women fought in battle when Sviatoslav I of Kiev attacked the Byzantines in Bulgaria in 971.[5] When the Varangians had suffered a devastating defeat, the victors were stunned at discovering armed women among the fallen warriors."


Now, did women participate in war and combat to the extent that men did? There seems to be mounting evidence to support it, but keep in mind that different historical eras, locations and cultures would make the number of female combatants vary. In the Viking Age, it wasn't all that difficult to go and fight as a female warrior, if you really wanted to; since Viking armies were largely informal affairs, it was a quite simple matter of walking up to them and asking to join . However, in the 20th century age of standing, professional armies, it would be a lot more difficult to become a soldier unless you had serious ranks in Bluff.

>> No.33808770

I'm wasn't claiming that women never fought. History is too long and the number of people involved is too many - the breadth of human activity is usually pretty surprising and women would have had plenty of good reasons to fight (in fact in some ways the more intriguing question is why it didn't happen far more often).

I'm not sure what you mean by "extent" though? 50/50 representation on the front lines or do you just mean that there were some women who did get stuck in? The latter most certainly happened.

I was talking specifically about what we can say on the basis of burials. I wasn't asking for a source on the Scythians because I think the idea is inherently ridiculous - I was asking because I haven't heard that claim before and I'd be interested to see how they supported it.

>> No.33808814

>Now, did women participate in war and combat to the extent that men did? There seems to be mounting evidence to support it

You have to be really fucking misguided if you think women participated in war to the extent of men.
Fuck, look at war TODAY.

This doesn't somehow make women less worth (in fact, it's the opposite). Yet somehow some people feel this is sexism.

>> No.33808884

It's also hillarious when the exact sources used state that their soldiers were STUNNED at the realization that females were fighting.

>> No.33808916

You have many good points there; now that I think on it, her tone does seem a tad overindulgent.

If we assume that, in your Great Wall of China example, you hypothetically are proclaiming yourself to be part of some kind of pan-temporal, trans-oceanic organization of "Men" and are therefore included among the ranks of the impoverished Chinese laborers who built the damn thing, then I would indeed tell you to fuck off. Hypothetically.

I'm not bothered too much about personal narrative. Although, she did include a rather pointless bit about how she can punch things in the face to the point of serious injury. Seems overtly violent and not at all necessary.

I would agree with you completely on the state of Western history education to a point. On one hand, Civilization 5 exposed a lot of people to Catherine the Great; it certainly exposed her to me, at any rate. When you look at that, and you look at AP History courses, they do go into a fair amount of detail about women's roles in history and such. That being said, Western educational systems can be quite different from each other in terms of quality. You might not get the same quality of education in the Bible Belt/Deep South as you do in Fairfax, Virginia. At one school or with one teacher, they might teach you different things or have a slightly different curriculum than other schools in the nation.

>> No.33808940

To be fair lots of those sources are about one society observing another. Some Arabs might be stunned to realise that we have women doctors but it's actually extremely common in Europe.

>> No.33808970


That movie hurts my autism. But yeah, practical always over bikini, the only time I find it acceptable is a Conan setting, where everyone is in retard wear.

>> No.33809075

Oh. It seemed that way to me, by the way you brought up Elizabeth I and her purely ceremonial arms.

I meant the latter. 50/50 representation would be spreading my evidence butter over too much thesis bread, so to speak.

I made no assumption of foolishness on your part. My apologies if that seemed so.

>> No.33809127

Guy you're talking about here.

It's not like I'm saying this was a common, ubiquitous thing. The soldiers of Sviatoslav I wouldn't have been stunned, otherwise. The point was simply, "Hey, this happened a few times."

>> No.33809321

>"I dwell in darkness without you" and IT WENT AWAY?

>> No.33809636

>You might not get the same quality of education in the Bible Belt/Deep South as you do in Fairfax, Virginia.
If you're comparing NOVA and the standard funded education system in the US, then you might as well extend this to "anywhere in the world" since you're just talking about how much money there is.

>> No.33809757

My elves are hardcore militarists that view females can fight and lead just as well as men and they're commonly found in the lower ranks as well.

My human women aren't really talked about other then being the wives of the desert men but there are few warrior priestesses who praise the sun dragon,

Dwarf women? The fuck those don't exist. I mean there is much rumor on how more dwarves come to be and many believe they are born from thunder eggs... Who knows though. Those stunty fucks could have some women hidden away deep in their golden fortresses on the mountain plateaus.

I would go on about the other races in my universe but I realize it's positively vanilla.

>> No.33809830


oh man that line

>> No.33810151

Warrior women? HAHAHAHAH



HINT: Force=mass times acceleration and women lack on both counts

>> No.33810177



>> No.33810199


This would be important if every fight in history was a 1v1 boxing match.

>> No.33810228

Why is she so perfect, bros?

>> No.33810316

The fuck is Jeanne d'Arc then

>> No.33810431

She never actually killed anyone with her own sword...

A better warrior woman, or several, would be:
Lydia Litvyak
Yekaterina Budanova
Nina Lobkovskaya
Mariya Oktyabrskaya
Alexandra Samusenko

And yes, they're all Russian.

>> No.33810454

This is what I think of when I imagine a female Space Marine.

>> No.33810496

She didn't even know how to use a sword, she went to the battles to inspire the troops.

>> No.33810514


All history points to her being more of a mascot figure than a fighter. I'm not saying she wasn't on the field, but what I am saying was she was probably not crossing steel.

Pic related is a better example of female fighters, she led charges and shit we'll defending and encouraged other women to "cut their skirts and take their safety in their own hands." Bitch was rad.

>> No.33810557

You forgot Boudicca

>> No.33810572

notto dis shitto again

>> No.33810576

Well, and lead them. Reading about her actual history is pretty fascinating, really. She couldn't fight, but she didn't need to. She helped a depressed and downtrodden army regain it's will to fight, and led them to a chain of victories until her capture.

>> No.33810581

This is what I think of when I imagine my future wife

>> No.33810610

I said several, not all. And all the ones I listed were from WW2, although by no means is that a comprehensive list. It's just some of the more interesting ones I've found.

>> No.33810616 [DELETED] 

I find dumbassery to be a turnoff, and wearing lingerie into battle is pants-on-head retarded

>> No.33810644

There is no evidence she didn't know or never used her sword. The one reference we have in regards to her personal combat experience comes from her trial, where she simply stated she 'preferred her standard to her sword' during an examination. That is not a definitive statement. Like everything Joan said, it was a clever way to avoid falling into legalistic traps like the other trick question 'are you in god's graces?', which was likewise meant to see her branded a heretic because any definitive answer is wrong. The 'have you stopped beating your wife' question of the medieval world.

She most certainly did engage on the field however, being wounded multiple times on the course of battle.

Claiming that she was merely a 'cheerleader' dumb and dishonest.

>> No.33810646

what if its magical

or what if you're a gaul

>> No.33810677


>Joan died at 19, being an illiterate farm girl and after having led and inspired her entire country back to victory
>Mid 20s, get nervous about ordering a pizza correctly

>> No.33810686

Given the culture I feel going into battle Naked is justifyable so long as the men are naked too.

I really liked the armor Casca wore in Berserk. It was sexy but also practical.

>> No.33810697

Ruined in the adaptation by having Renly not be the king we all wanted to rule. It makes her crush seem comical. D&D OC bullshit makes me wince too.

Still fantastic.

>Warrior women? HAHAHAHAH
If it can hold a spear, stand still when ordered, walk forward when ordered, and poke someone hard enough to shove a knife through them then it's good enough 90% of the time.

No worries, I didn't exactly make myself clear and the position you thought I held is held by plenty of other people so it wasn't an unreasonable assumption to make.

>> No.33810742


you Fucking faggot.
Kill yourself and rid the world of your stupidity.
Realistic armor is only armor, and you're a filthy swine who shouldn't even be allowed to like it.
Go die die die DIE

>> No.33810787

I like ladies who like superior firepower

>> No.33810791

never read ASOFAI

I rarely if ever actually read

I just find myself preferring Audio and Visual mediums much more

>> No.33810832


>She most certainly did engage on the field however, being wounded multiple times on the course of battle.

If I remember correctly her injuries are like always bolts, arrows and siege debris, which any mother fucker a mile within a battlefield could sustain. It's kind of points to argue one way or another, there is not enough proof for either side.

>> No.33810867

M-my heart...
m-muh dick....

>> No.33810882

Cuck porn is worse.

>> No.33810888

But we can use common sense here, that it is EXTREMELY unlikely that she knew how to use a sword. Peasants normally don't own swords and don't know how to use them, a peasant teenage girl in Christian Europe? I don't think so.

>> No.33810891

>If it can hold a spear, stand still when ordered, walk forward when ordered, and poke someone hard enough to shove a knife through them then it's good enough 90% of the time.
Sun Tzu said that! And I'd say he knows a little bit more about warfare than you heads!

>> No.33810900


Wouldn't the waist/hip tuck make all blows glance/glide/funnel to her stomach?

>> No.33810905

>porn with a woman having sex in front of her partner is somehow worse than porn involving death and murder

I'm not into cuckolding but you'd have to be super insecure to think that

>> No.33810913

Cheerleading is more important than fighting for leaders. It even has "lead" in it. Male military leaders HAVE to be seen as at least willing to get stuck in or otherwise their army will seem them as a coward and not worth fighting for.

Joan was hyped up as a prophetess, divinely counselled, and those that followed her followed the will of God.

She is very unlikely to have received extensive training in combat skills, and was more important to the army than 1000 well armed knights. Additionally as she was bearing the standard she would have been at a severe disadvantage in the melee.

Maybe she shanked a guy or two - we'll never know - but she would have had no expertise at it and it wasn't what made her so dangerous. The modern depiction of her as some kind of great warrior is stupid. Even if she didn't worry about staying safe countless men who have fallen to keep her so.

Even if she was the greatest warrior who ever lived, hitting things with sharpened sticks wouldn't have been her third best asset.

>> No.33810929

She was good enough to not die in the world of Berserk, so it doesn't really matter.

>> No.33810935

What buckle?

>> No.33810949


Didn't stop her from being raped, though.

>> No.33810966

Yeah, try these two on for size...

Lydia Litvyak is believed to have died at the age of 19, and served as a Soviet Union Fighter Pilot flying a Yak-1. She took part in 12 air victories. In one instance, she shot down a famed German fighter ace
>Then she shot a Bf 109 G-2 "Gustav" off the tail of her squadron commander, Raisa Beliaeva. The Bf 109 was piloted by a decorated pilot from the 4th Air Fleet commanded by General Wolfram Freiherr von Richthofen (a distant relative of the Red Baron) the 11-victory ace, three-time recipient of the Iron Cross, Staff Sergeant Erwin Maier of the 2nd Staffel of Jagdgeschwader 53. Maier parachuted from his aircraft, was captured by Soviet troops, and asked to see the Russian ace who had outflown him. When he was taken to stand in front of Litvyak, he thought he was being made the butt of a Soviet joke. It was not until Litvyak described each move of the dogfight to him in perfect detail that he knew he had been beaten by a woman pilot.

Or Mariya Oktyabrskaya.
In the opening moves of Operation Barbarosa, her husband (a soldier at the time in the Red Army) was killed during the German advances.
>She sells all her belongs, land, and farm at 38 years of age.
>Buys a goddamned T-34 tank with the money and names it the Fighting Girlfriend.
>Donates it to the Red Army on the condition she gets to drive it
>They put her through Guards Honors Tank Training program, lasting for 5 months, and attach her to a Guards regiment as a publicity stunt
>She runs over Germans, drives her tank like a goddamned pro, and quickly earns a reputation for jumping out under fire to repair the vehicle
>Dies from a shrapnel wound to the head, after quickly completing repairs to fix a track section blown off at the battle of Shvedy .

>> No.33811004

Eh, when a being of incredible supernatural power throws an army at a handful of people, getting raped really was the least shit thing to go through. Hell, she doesn't even remember it. Guts does, he lost a hand, an eye, his love, his friends, and everything else.

>> No.33811134

Many notable 'military' figures were more figureheads than actual 'leaders', Caesar Augustus for example seems to have relied on subordinate generals and merely been present on the battlefield as a moral boost. It helps to see the person your fighting for even if he's not the one providing the battle plan. Joan gave her army a direct link to God, a tangible example of divine favor, that can't be understated.

With that said, I think claiming she was anything more than a figurehead is the dishonest opinion. Calling her a cheerleader is disrespectful, but, battlefield injuries aside, she wasn't even on the field for her greatest victory at Patay, which was won by the emboldened French vanguard before the army proper reached the field. At the end of the day, she was a 19 year old French peasant girl, with neither the training nor physical strength to engage armoured and battle-hardened English men-at-arms in hand to hand fighting, the first record we have of her getting within arms reach of enemy soldiers, she's pulled off her horse and captured. We also know the tactical and strategic decisions were made by experienced French commanders within her army, not her personally.

Joan of Arc does not fit the amazonian warrior woman ideal shes often portrayed in, she was clearly possessed of an exceptional mind but theres nothing to suggest similar strategic or tactical capability, nor physical prowess.

If you want a true 'warrior woman' from the same period and region, Joanna of Flanders fits the bill perfectly.

>> No.33811315

How I like all my women, KILLING PROTESTANT SCUM.

>> No.33811398

I like all my women MAKING MY PROSTATE CUM

>> No.33811417


>> No.33811600

Vasa, Luthor, those filthy Anglicans. Heretics one and all

>> No.33811780

This is one of the most dishonest posts I've seen in a while, because it shows that the poster has the knowledge to determine with almost certainty that she never actually engaged in combat but attempts to twist the situation into saying she did.

Not dumb, just lying.

>she was clearly possessed of an exceptional mind but theres nothing to suggest similar strategic or tactical capability, nor physical prowess.
If by exceptional you mean most likely schizophrenic.

>...and that's my incontrovertible proof that there were lady knights

>> No.33811799

Well, it kind of depends. Paladin/knight, more practical. Barbarian type, fem fatale in bikini armor.
But usually, kind of in the middle. Practical, yet still top boner-popping material when not in armor.

>> No.33811842

Huge Amazonian women with large boobs are my fetish
so uh...

>> No.33811890

Well yeah... BUT SHE'S HOT!

>> No.33811893

This is the problem.
Aside from some Scythian groups and one sub-saharan African group there aren't actual legitimate female soldiers or "warriors".

Every example of a "warrior woman" or the like is a woman that either did something motivational or managerial or they were defending themselves from immediate attack because they had no other choice.

Aside from those two exceptions in actuality history shows that whenever there is a choice between women and men actually fighting in combat, women don't do it.

The constant battering and twisting of actual evidence into showing a version of events conducive to modern, feminist sensibilities of female empowerment is disingenuous and when it is inevitably shown to be bullshit, serves to discredit the actual intention of female empowerment. It suggests that the only way women can achieve things is not by inspiring or leading, but by lying about things they never did.

Boudicca is basically the Britonic Jeanne d'Arc - at best a military leader, at worst a figurehead.

She's absolutely fucking terrible compared to the book version.

>> No.33811982

Fuck, after the whole chain, this comment flat-out broke me.

>> No.33812060

She seems to have been very coherent for a schizophrenic and intelligent enough to run rings around some of the most educated men of the time.

As an Englishman however, I am obliged to state she was most definately a witch, in league with the devil and we only lost as Patay because she used her evil magic to teleport a few hundred Frog knights within spitting distance of our otherwise unbeatable army.

>> No.33812073


There are two different arguments here that look like one.

The first is one about whether women make equal, or good, warriors. This one is being pushed in the negative almost exclusively, largely because it's not true. The nature of human physiology is that men are somewhat better suited to warfare.

The other argument is that women were soldiers, and occasionally good soldiers. This argument is being almost entirely pushed in the positive. This also has the advantage of being true on the historical record; women have always fought in their own right, whether they were allowed or not, and the only flux is in the official-ity of these women soldiers. It's the nature of the bell-curve that it has its end-point. IT doesn't matter that the best, say, 10% of women would not be as good at soldiering as the best 10% of men - all that matters is if you go enough standard deviations up the bell-curve of women soldieryness, you will find a group that is at the standard required to be an effective soldier.

These two arguments are going on at the same time, with no real opposition. They only see the other argument, and assume it is in opposition to theirs, when it is actually just a different argument.

The main thing keeping women out of combat is that we have the luxury not to need that extensive a mobilisation, and the mindset that we shouldn't use women to fight unecessarily. We can choose between women as soldiers or men as soldiers, and we preer the idea of men as soldiers. If we were ever in a situation where we needed soldiers, and the choice was between women as soldiers or not as many soldiers, we would do it.

>> No.33812078

>live experience shit
So everybody else is susceptible to biased "narratives", except for SJWs?

Does "narrative" now mean "anything I want"?

>Let’s just put it this way: if you think there’s a thing – anything – women didn’t do in the past, you’re wrong.
Walked on the moon? Institute a policy of exploitative sexism? Not make stupid exaggerations?

>> No.33812088


Did not intend to quote anyone.

>> No.33812099

This is the first time i've seen a thread about practical female armor where someone has actually posted a woman in practical armor. Thank you, op.

>> No.33812145

Different anon here.
Personally, i don'tfind the whole concept of warrior woman unrealistic. Sure, there are historical periods and countries where itwas less plausible, but unless you're playing 100% SERIOUS HISTORICAL RECREATION OF TIME PERIOD it shouldn't matter. It ESPECIALLY shouldn't matter in fantasy, where you run into exceptional individuals all the time.

>> No.33812158

There are like 5 differing accounts of what Jeanne said during her trial. There's so much nationalism and bullshit mixed into it all we'll probably never know.

And there are definitive accounts of her having 'fitful vision' type things.
Either she was straight up lying to people, was schizophrenic or god was talking to her.

She wasn't at Patay.

You can dress up a straw man but it still doesn't say anything, except you're willing to bend the truth to get your way.

>> No.33812169

>everyone forgets Jean's hat

>> No.33812172

If she was straight up lying, then fuck, she had a lot of balls to go through with that.

>> No.33812224

Fuck you and your popery catholic dog. Ill never let you papists bismirch my isle

>> No.33812246

ahhhhhhhhh shit nigga we wars of religion now. Were my Orthadoxy bros at

>> No.33812260

Sometimes, evidence of women fighting/leading is downplayed by people who let their misogyny overpower their historical impartiality.

>> No.33812266

>tfw you unite the free tribes of Britain against the Roman invaders
>tfw you are the best commander your people have
>tfw you fight a decade of guerilla warfare in defence of your islands
>tfw you are only finally defeated because a greedy British queen betrays you in exchange for wine
>tfw your taken to Rome
>tfw you give such a rousing speech that the otherwise bloodthirsty Romans can't bring themselves to execute you
>tfw they pardon you and allow you to live in peace in Rome
>tfw you did more to keep your people free than any other
>tfw upstaged in the history books by some ginger bint who massacred a bunch of unarmed civilians and then got her army slaughtered in her first proper battle by a Roman legion she outnumbered 10-1
>tfw everyone remember her as the spirit of British resistance
>tfw no one knows your name. No one learns about you in school.

Being Caratacus is suffering.

>> No.33812286

Matsu Tsuko

>> No.33812292

>implying we're your bros
get off my lawn, bucketheads.

>> No.33812297

Sometimes, evidence of women fighting/leading is overplayed by people who let their feminist politics overpower their historical impartiality.

>> No.33812298


I'm in fucking Australia and I was taught about Caractacus. What shitty school did you go to?

Caractacus is pretty cool. Rome's damned lucky he wasn't from a mainland nation or they'd have had a second Hannibal Barca to deal with.

>> No.33812316

Whatever you fucking idolaters. I guess the one true church just has to burn some Calvinists on its own then.

>> No.33812402

I'm in Britain, I actually live in the same area as the Iceni, so maybe that biased my teachers, on the other hand, Caratacus doesn't have a bronze statue outside the Houses of Parliment. My school got good Ofsted reports, which apparantly means its 'good' or at least tows the political line.

I didn't even get taught about the Empire until I hit college, that was completely glossed over in favour of the North Atlantic slave trade and Victorian children losing limbs in the evil industrial revolution and being sent up chimneys to die/clean them. According to my history lessons up until age 18, most houses in Victorian Britain had a handful of dead kids wedged in them.

I can't say if my experience is indicitive of British history education, most of my peers have zero interest in the history of their country so its hard to judge what their education was like. Sad state of affairs.

>> No.33812476

>Lived experiences
As opposed to those experiences people have that are not part of their lives.
>Institute a policy of exploitative sexism?
Probably lots of female rulers. The women who achieve power are not the same women who bitch in public about how unfair it is that they don't have as much power as they'd like - in general at least. The best players of a game tend not be the people whining about game balance.
>Not make stupid exaggerations?
Most people make stupid exaggerations, some boring women probably make fewer than most other people.

This guy gets it. One minor issue I take though is with the following:
>The main thing keeping women out of combat is that we have the luxury not to need that extensive a mobilisation
I would argue that for most of history we were not generating the food surpluses necessary for extensive mobilisation, and lacked the industrial capacity for it as well. As a result the limiting factor on total troop numbers is not the total number of bodies you can grab, but the number of bodies you can train, arm and feed. If that is the case then you will be looking for the best possible candidates since, in RTS terminology, you have a unit cap.

If this is so and women are generally weaker than men then the opportunity cost of having a female soldier is not having a male soldier who would likely be stronger.

The argument that social pressures were the only reason more women didn't fight doesn't stand up since even in traditionally sexist societies women are frequently mobilised when doing so increases the effective size of the fighting force. See, pretty much everyone but America during the second world war with a decent industrial capacity. Warrior women, therefore, seem more likely to be a result of an entrenched classist society that is unwilling to train and arm members of others classes. Spartan women were trained to fight for example, because fuck giving weapons to helots.

>> No.33812497

Feels good to be Coptic son

>> No.33812504

>>Aside from some Scythian groups and one sub-saharan African group there aren't actual legitimate female soldiers or "warriors".

East Asia would like to disagree with you.

>> No.33812517

Arent you just Orthodoxy's bastard children?

>> No.33812519


I don't know why. History is great. It's the Greatest Hits track for all of everything that humans ever did. It's only history education that can be shit, because everything is shit if taught by fuckos.

I mean, they can make Roman history boring. I don't know how. This is one of the biggest-deal civilisations, with not only a thousand years of great stories everywhere, but almost all of it painstakingly recorded. You have shit like Julius Caesar, the Spartacus revolt, and one of the only times in all history when two of history's top ten generals actually went head-to-head, Hannibal Barca and Scipio Africanus. How in the actual fuck can that be uninteresting.

I don't understand countries that don't teach their national history completely and accurately. You done shit. There's some amazing stories in the British Isles. I'm in fucking Australia where there's 200 years of not-much and 60,000 years of nobody-wrote-it-down, and they still spend a lot of time teaching people it.

>> No.33812532

Ends-justifies-the-means horse shit.

>It's okay for me to twist the truth because lesser people need to be lied to to think the right thing!

>serves to discredit the actual intention of female empowerment.

That's my post. I'm a gender egalitarian so I have a special kind of disgust for people like you who discredit people like me and stop actual societal progress from happening.

Heard of him, but don't know enough apparently.

>> No.33812553

Britfag here. Our head of department in secondary school was a massive farming nerd so we did a whole year on the agricultural revolution. It was actually pretty cool and now that I look back on it was probably the most important thing we studied in history.

Nothing about the Empire though really - though 19th century reform movements was at least high politics around the right period.

>> No.33812562

>Warrior women, therefore, seem more likely to be a result of an entrenched classist society that is unwilling to train and arm members of others classes. Spartan women were trained to fight for example, because fuck giving weapons to helots.
Female empowerment confirmed for being a side-effect of racism.

East Asia would like people to believe a great many things but unfortunately they've been mixing fiction and non-fiction for so long they can no longer recognise human faces.

>> No.33812567

Well the Patriarch is much Uglier then our ruggedly handsome Pope.

>> No.33812608


That's a good point and I should have focused on saying that instead of sweeping a lot of point into one general comment. I also say that we don't want to because it covers the genuine factual reasons AND the political ones.

My latter comments are more in reference to modern history, and the current world, where we could arm and feed every able-bodied human between 18 and 40. We have the capacity for full mobilisation, but we choose not to because we don't need it at all.

Right now, women aren't in frontline spots partially because they are less suited, partially because the shitstorm around the idea, and partially because the army isn't desireable enough for women to join that you get the numbers needed for the bell curve to kick in. IF a million randomly-selected women applied for the US army tomorrow, there'd have to be a t least a few hundred or thousand who'd make good soldiers, and a couple who'd even be good enough for special forces. There's just nowhere near that many women signing up, and because the political pressure to sign up women, the lack of good candidates, and the pressure to keep them out of combat, there's not enough good enough women and good enough reasons for them to be made frontline soldiers.

>> No.33812655


Less racism than classism. For most of history the idea of somewhere-else has been covering so much of everything that even the people from the big city were as strange to you as an Arab or a Mandarin would have been. Culturalism was bigger than racialism, and nationalism was rare. Genuine widepsread racism is a relatively recent sociological thing in terms of civilisation's history.

>> No.33812679

Yes, of course. The resulting blow would likely kill her. This is why you never, ever see armor of that type in reality.

>> No.33812695 [DELETED] 

Raped and pregnant.

Failing that, practical.

>> No.33812716

Just like those ridiculous 'boob-plate' things, they'd trap sword points and direct blows towards the sternum, no such thing would be worn by a warrior in real life.

>> No.33812720

>Hannibal Barca and Scipio Africanus
I love the parallels between them and Napoleon and the Duke of Wellington. It makes all my history nerd pores tingle.

>> No.33812729

I know, right? Every single piece of armor ever made was designed to be as angular and deflecting as possible.

>> No.33812760

I mean, we all know that functionality was prized over everything else by all cultures throughout time.

>> No.33812780

It's kinda funny how with better accessability to other parts of the world the "man, fuck these guys" range shifts. If we ever get to interstellar travel and colonization of space i imagine every planet will be peaceful haven accepting for everyone
...except for assholes from that neighboring planet. Fuck these guys.

>> No.33812792

and would most definately NOT be designed to be sexually suggestive in any way!

>> No.33812803


I prefer Barca if only for his spectacular swag.

Apocryphal story, but I don't care it's my headhistory:

It is said that at one of their meetings in the gymnasium Scipio and Hannibal had a conversation on the subject of generalship, in the presence of a number of bystanders, and that Scipio asked Hannibal whom he considered the greatest general, to which the latter replied, "Alexander of Macedonia".

To this Scipio assented since he also yielded the first place to Alexander. Then he asked Hannibal whom he placed next, and he replied, "Pyrrhus of Epirus", because he considered boldness the first qualification of a general; "for it would not be possible", he said, "to find two kings more enterprising than these".

Scipio was rather nettled by this, but nevertheless he asked Hannibal to whom he would give the third place, expecting that at least the third would be assigned to him; but Hannibal replied, "to myself; for when I was a young man I conquered Hispania and crossed the Alps with an army, the first after Hercules."

As Scipio saw that he was likely to prolong his self-laudation he said, laughing, "where would you place yourself, Hannibal, if you had not been defeated by me?" Hannibal, now perceiving his jealousy, replied, "in that case I should have put myself before Alexander". Thus Hannibal continued his self-laudation, but flattered Scipio in a indirect manner by suggesting that he had conquered one who was the superior of Alexander.

>> No.33812850


And the funny thing about the Hannibal adventure is that it says as much about the strength of Rome as it does the brilliance of Hannibal.

Rome has suffered a series of cruelling losses, time and time again, and its soldiers are badly depleted. Hannibal has ground down many times his own number. Rome is on the verge of an existential crisis. Their two skilled generals with their best close-by army have suffered one of the most comprehensive defeats in military history.

What does Rome do? It calmly passes motions to raise more forces, and appoint a new General.

For all Rome was a corrupt mess, its political strength was astounding.

>> No.33812853

>I prefer Barca if only for his spectacular swag.
Eh that's exactly why I like Scipio/Wellington over Barca/Napoleon. They're kinda boring guys with no swag at all, and just did the best they could in their circumstance, one that was shaped by the other. Movies are made about Barca and Napoleon, not Scipio and Wellington.

>> No.33812919

I always liked the idea that Scipio and Wellington would have been amazing soldiers, regardless of the time they were born in, but they both happened to be born in a time when their careers would be defined by their challenging of men even greater than themselves. In a different time they would have been conquerors themselves, but fate seems to have chosen them instead to save their people in their hour of need.

They have an air of dragon-slayers about them.

>> No.33812924

Hah, that's a great way to put it, very well said. I'm now off to bed, had fun in /his/. Peace.

>> No.33813001

I agree the real strength of the Republic in that era was a staggering ability to take hits like Cannae, a battle with a death-toll not matched until the first day of the Somme offensive in the 1st World War, and just regroup, raise more legion and keep fighting. Any other civilisation in the world at the time would have immediately sued for peace and agreed to whatever demands Hannibal would have set, or would have been suffering huge political turmoil and people blamed the current regime for the disaster. The Romans just started calling up fresh legions.

They didn't get that empire by chance I can say that.

>> No.33813054

>people like you
>people like me
Quite clearly, with that kind of language, you're so far up your own ass, not just with women soldiers but history in general, that anything you have to say is tinted by your own ignorance.

I know two such female soldiers, that I'd only know by keenly studying the period I'm interested in. Have you keenly studied all history to be able to say what you do?

I'm short for time so I can't find a good source for my two claims to genuine female soldiery in the ECW, but one of them is a Frances Dalziel who commanded a troop of horse for the Royalists (whose cornet involved a man in a gibbet with the motto "I dare"), and there was a parliamentarian Lady who organised the siege of her house and recognised by parliament as a better soldier than her husband, sadly I can't remember her name or the house. A secondary source for this info would be the earlier ECW Notes and Queries series, but they aren't so widely available.

>> No.33813241

Are you saying their achievements have been supressed? From where I'm standing the only exceptional thing about either of them is their gender. Popular history has to deal in broad strokes, your not going to teach students about some nobody who commanded a house seige and had an incompetant husband, or commanded a horse troop, neither of these are notable achievements, it would paint a warped view of the period if you championed them because they were women and then ignore the hundreds of other cavalry commanders, siege organisers etc who happened to be male.

Whenever female warriors have even been rumoured to appear in history, its generally been recorded, more so than men in many cases. How many mediocre male cavalry commanders can you name? The Dahomey Amazons fascinated contempory writers...how many other units from the Dahomey army wiped out without any significant resistance by the French Foreign Legion received attention? Exceptional female soldiers have just as many pages in history about them as exceptional male soldiers, its just theres fewer female soldiers overall, so fewer distinguished women appear.

>> No.33813260

Hmm I disagree with the idea of practicality and requirement of full armour on characters required if at all possible. That sort of gaming probably means your GM makes battles more like a modern day gun fight and not a melee of pre automatic weapons nature and even in a modern day gun fight Kevlar holds you back in some situations. its like saying swimming bottoms are not practical. I think theres nothing wrong with a bikini armoured character in the right kind of game.

If your doing some sort of predictable wargame historical version of dnd then of course you should all be battle mage space marines in full armour but thous games are shit any way.

>> No.33813271

Be glad that you're not Dutch. The only thing we learned about in high school was WW2.

At least I got some cool books about knights and stuff from the library as a kid

>> No.33813364

So you are saying that Chainmail bikinis should be ok, because people have done dumb things in the name of vanity.

>> No.33813474

>neither of these are notable achievements
Ahh, you're one of those historians who measure things relative to current ideas and attitudes and not those contemporary to the period.

>> No.33813493

Different guy but with regard to what you said about the role of women being downplayed I would disagree. The examples you've given are of minor officers - most people don't know shit about the ECW so why would you expect people to have heard of them?

Generally speaking female combatants and military leaders are fondly remembered simply for existing - they've hardly been expunged from the records and are even pushed to the fore of modern curricula ahead of more significant men. As >>33812266 demonstrated, everyone knows Boadicea and nobody knows Caractacus unless they're a fan of the Savoy operas or happen to live in his home town.

Whilst >>33811893 is wrong in saying women never fought outside of those two exceptions he cited, he's also not wrong to say that generally speaking people want "warrior women" more than the practice of women participating in frontline combat was actually common.

>> No.33813594

Not him but let's compare your Royalist cavalry commander to Oliver Cromwell. Oliver Cromwell led the New Model Army and changed the course of British history and ruled as Lord Protector; England, Scotland and Ireland were permanently changed by his influences and wherever you go in the country you can still see the marks he made. Your cavalry officer possibly did a good job leading a cavalry unit most people have never heard of, although credit to her for achieving that rank.

You do see how those things are different right? You do see why one is relevant to popular history and the other is not? Let's be honest, most people couldn't tell you who was king during the ECW - that's how important you have to be to be memorable.

>> No.33813731

Nope, I don't think either of those is notable compared to their contempories, aside from the fact, as I said, their gender. Both sides in the civil war had thousands of cavalry officers, and countless seiges were conducted, requiring commanders on both sides. Cromwell is what I would consider a notable achievement, starting as a cavalry officer and ending up as Lord Protector of England. Doing your job is not note worthy, unless its a job your gender does not normally perform. I don't see why we should give undue focus to historically insignificant individuals just because it suits our current political ideologies. We don't have records of men who decided to branch out into women's roles in that period probably because they'd have been shot for cowardice, we have records of the women who branched into men's roles, often more detailed because they were seen as an oddity, I think thats enough without putting them on a pedestal.

I'm not measuring by our attitudes, they were unremarkable because they didn't achieve anything that their male contempories didn't also. A female captain who does whats required of her in the army full of captains that do whats required of them does not deserve special mentions in history alongside people who had a much larger effect on the period like Cromwell and King Charles. If she'd innovated new military tactics, won a decisive battle or defeated a note worthy enemy, she'd be recorded in history the same as a man with those achievements, albeit with more 'Who'd have though a woman could do that' tacked on.

You can't point to women who didn't have a significant effect on the course of history and then say that because they get less media coverage than men who altered the fate of nations, thats indicitive of some misogynistic bias.

Theres plenty of misogyny in historical accounts, however, erasing or overlooking women's military achievements when they happen doesn't seem to be something that happens from my perspective.

>> No.33813818

>We don't have records of men who decided to branch out into women's roles in that period probably because they'd have been shot for cowardice

"Well sir, since there's women putting on armour and going to fight the roundheads, and by all accounts doing rather well, I thought I'd have a crack at staying at home behind the city walls, doing a bit of laundry and watching the kids rather than marching directly into matchlock fire, what do you think?"

>> No.33813870

Yep, directly into the strongest part of the armour

>> No.33813968

I enjoy nice looking armor that covers someone up. I like my women looking pretty and feminine.

Is it practical? Probably not. But at least it's not chain-mail bikini level of dumb.

>> No.33814007

Yes, but she was a Royalist cavalry officer. They were all Glorious Cavalier Supermen rather than Filthy Insignificant Roundhead Caracoling Scum

>> No.33814070

Considering my ancestors went into battle 'au naturel' and covered head to toe in blue paint with bleached hair.....yeah, chainmail bikinis, if they existed, would not be the weirdest thing ever worn in combat.

Ask a Roman legionary who'd seen a horde of psychotic blue people helicoptering towards him at high speed, a South American tribesman who's witnessed his tribe cut to ribbons by a platoon of battle-furries in jaguar pyjamas or a Greek soldier who's obese commander wears a bronze cuirass with carved abs and diamond studded nipples, if they'd be surprised by a women wearing chainmail underwear into battle.

>> No.33814144

It's one thing to go into battle naked. That's a valid option when you don't really have armor. But when you have chainmail, but purposefully design it in such a way that any benefit is gives you is completely negligible is just strange

>> No.33814172

The links might be purely decorative. Low quality iron brought up to a decent polish, copper, lead all sound like decent options.

>> No.33814272

Kinda like this

>> No.33814547

Celts invented mail, and even the poorest of their warriors would have been able to fashion armour from boiled leather or at least a padded jacket akin to poor soldier in the medieval period. The celts that fought naked did so because they strongly believe that the best defence was to have the gods on your side, if you didn't, not amount of armour would save you. Theres no stronger way of displaying your courage and worth to the gods, and your absolute trust in their powers, than to fight 'tackle out'.

I think if you want to include impractical, illogical or skimpy armor in a game/character, that can be done, and done well, provided you do the legwork to justify it and base it on historical instances. Plenty of historical male armour was designed to be 'sexy' or flattering, sometimes at the expense of practicality. Mail Bikinis are strange, but so are humans.

>> No.33814589

Only a small portion of celts could afford mail. Those who did wore it. Less that that was generally frowned on as useless and fighting naked had more than just intimidation on its side. A wound without frankly dirty cloth stuck in it was less likely to become septic than a wound with that.

>> No.33814608

Note on celt armor. Hellenized Celts happily wore the Persio-Hellenic Linothorax

>> No.33814659

Bikini armor is shit for forevervirgin-tier fedora tippers.

>> No.33814673

>Hat maymay.
For fucks sake man, the horse died. the flesh is a large pulpy puddle around a shattered skeleton. Stop fucking beating it.

>> No.33814718

>Chainmail bikini fan
>Telling somebody else to stop beating it

>> No.33814753

>Turned from the most chivalrous knight in the realm, in fact the epitome of supposed knigthly virtues - honor, loyalty, bravery, truthfulness, courteous love - who understands in what shitty world she lives in, yet does not let it drag her down to its level, into a semi-psychotic womyn stronk thug who picks needless fights.

Fucking showfags.

>> No.33814780

I don't give a single fuck about chainmail bikinis. Hell I prefer more practical armor. I'm just tired of the fedora tipping meme.

>> No.33814825

Nonexistent. I mean, I won't sperg out if my players want them, but my personal preference is to have settings make some basic sense.

If you're going to have "warrior women" in a premodern game because "it's fantasy, anything can be possible", it's the same as saying "in this world the sexes are cones and cylinders, they bear no relation to the real-world sexes".

>> No.33814826

>plain and practical ~realism~
>plain and practical

Thinking that these words belong in a single sentence instantly reveal projection of 20-21st centuries sensitives onto historical periods where they don't belong. The only medieval warriors who looked plain were those dirt-poor losers who couldn't afford colorful clothing and decorations.

>> No.33814858

The ass was fat

>> No.33814905

Warrior women in fantasy aren't that unrealistic, though. The reasons for women to stay off the battlefield in fantasy settings are way fewer than they were historically: infant mortality is always really low in fantasy settings, and medicine (or healing magic) is usually pretty good, meaning that the population growth rate needs far fewer breeding women to stay stable, shit like magic works as an equaliser for the physiological difference, and when you're fighting a huge orc, an ogre, a dragon, whatever, being a bit weaker than a human make isn't going to make that much difference since you're going to be massively outmached physically whether you're male or female.

>> No.33815012

>infant mortality is always really low in fantasy settings
Who says? Which settings?

>shit like magic works as an equaliser for the physiological difference
Yes, which is why I have nothing against female wizards. What's that got to do with anything? Are you suggesting ambient magic roids up all women in fantasy worlds or what?

>and when you're fighting a huge orc, an ogre, a dragon, whatever, being a bit weaker than a human make isn't going to make that much difference
Do you even HEMA? "A bit weaker" is such an understatement of the truth it's practically a lie, 4% of women are at least as strong as *the average man*, the difference is huge. I'm a lardass and I can outfight any woman at my club after four months of practice, that's far from true with the men.

The assumption that it's all ogres and dragons is real spurious too, in my games most opponents are humans or roughly equivalent humanoids.

And finally,
>Warrior women in fantasy aren't that unrealistic
>Writes list of unrealistic handwaves
It's still totally unrealistic if you're *okay* with it being unrealistic, anon.

>> No.33815090

>infant mortality is always really low in fantasy settings
>Wat Who says? Which settings?
Dark Sun, duh.

>> No.33815185

>Who says? Which settings?
If you look at the child mortality rates of poorer countries even midway through last century, you will see figures showing as many as 1 in 4 children not making it to age 5. While there isn't solid data on the middle ages, there are estimates of the child mortality rate being about 1 in 3 in medieval Europe, and though I wouldn't take that as absolute, how many fantasy settings have shit be like that? A few, i'm sure, but lots of people play rpgs in high fantasy settings. Do 1 in 3 children die before age 5 in the forgotten realms, or golarion?

>Are you suggesting ambient magic roids up all women in fantasy worlds or what?

I was more suggesting that well equipped adventurers like you get in pnp RPGS tend to rely on magic weapons and shit anyway, not being able to swing a sword that can slice through plate and light people on fire as hard as someone else will still light them on fire and shit

>A bit weaker" is such an understatement of the truth it's practically a lie, 4% of women are at least as strong as *the average man*, the difference is huge

My point is that from the human perspective its a big difference, but the shit you see in high fantasy is so much stronger than a human that it's not going to even notice the difference.

Yeah, i know that most of this is was with regards to high fantasy, but to me that seems to be where the warrior women thing is more common anyway.

>> No.33815283

If you're willing to go a bit earlier, there is Matilda di Canossa, who commanded the papal armies in the 11th century, fighting and winning against the Holy Roman Emperor repeatedly.

As someone studying to be a history teacher I can honestly say things are getting better.

We're finally getting more of a focus on the golden age and 18th century, the patriot movement is finally being taught again and even the slave trade is nowadays less about 'look at how evil we were'.

Medieval period is still lacking in refinement but we're getting there. I still think it is ridiculous that there is so little focus one the Burgundian Dynasty despite their lust for power establishing the Netherlands as a unified idea.

>> No.33815422

>Do 1 in 3 children die before age 5 in the forgotten realms, or golarion?
I would assume, yeah, unless the opposite is stated. I don't really care about Golarion specifically though, shit tier world IMO.

>rely on magic weapons and shit anyway
Okay that one's actually a good point. But:

>My point is that from the human perspective its a big difference, but the shit you see in high fantasy is so much stronger than a human that it's not going to even notice the difference.
No, dude, no. Many women seriously can't seem to train up their wrist strength enough it doesn't collapse when wielding a one handed sword any length of time. The ogre is fucking well going to notice that the female fighter can't even break his skin with her sword. Just like you can tell the difference between being mauled by a German Shepherd and a pygmy poodle even though "they're both dogs".
This whole claim is just wrong, even if I did accept that most of the stuff you fight in high fantasy is much stronger than a human (which I don't). The practical difference is massive. Like okay if it's to the point where hitting a dragon with a sword is equivalent to punching a tank, but show me the high fantasy where you just straight-up can't fight a dragon and win? That's not very "high" by my standards.

>> No.33815511

Fuck realism.

>> No.33815668

I like all my warriors completely covered in plate armor, preferably with helmets that cover their faces. Ass and titties are fine on wenches and courtesans, but a fighter should wear the maximum amount of armor she can afford.

>> No.33815725

I don't like fantasy warriors at all. Magic-users are much better.
And I don't give a fuck about realism. It's a **fantasy** world, it works in different ways. It can't even have the same laws of nature because it has magic.
So I have no problems with chainmail bikinies.
And plain and practical armor is boring. We had plenty of it in real world's history.

>> No.33816133

I like my women the way I like my men,
Buff bare-bodied boisterous barbarians battling beasts

>> No.33816238

>dem armpit guards.

boner pls.

>> No.33816393

Lemuria campaign when?

>> No.33817277

Caska then.

>> No.33817352

>>33816238 armpit guards


>> No.33817370

To all the people arguing about female warriors being an actual thing, there are two general types to have shown up in Japan: Onna-bugeisha and Kunoichi.

The former were, at one time, not uncommonly following their husbands to battle, or more often, defending the household during military campaigns.
They were expected to be proficient with Naginata, short swords, and archery.
The later were fucking ninja, many taking advantage of late Edo-period preconceptions on the 'natural' place of women as being weak, and nearly cattle.

And for more historical accounts, look at these lists:



>> No.33817524

I couldn't really give a fuck as to the armor, I only care that they're as muscular as a dedicated warrior would be.

A female that constantly trains and builds a suitable amount of muscle, but wears nothing/next to nothing for whatever reason? Perfectly okay, as long as they have the probably supernatural combat ability to back it up instead of dying because they had no armor.

>> No.33817605

>Brass armor
Bitches don't know about Steel sets

>> No.33817682

>200 word shitty analogy about llamas
>repeats it at every moments notice
>use of the royal we
>self absorbed vapid posts about how great women are
>meandering infodumps that go nowhere and don't tie into the thrust of the article
>pointless profanity to show how mad she is
>lack of decent sourcing
>no referencing
It's terrible dude

>> No.33817712

Warriors wouldn't usually look like bodybuilders

>> No.33817745

She admitted to never killing anyone at the trial. She did however manage to break a sword beating a prostitute, so I guess you can label that the most heroic battle of her career.

>> No.33817834

Don't talk shit about her, she knows how to use her boyfriends guns and she'll beat you the fuck up ok?

>> No.33818147

Sorsha is how warrior women should be. Not head to toe in plate armor, but wearing something they are capable of actually utilizing.

>> No.33818825 [SPOILER] 

I like em strong, pissed off, and with a sense of nobility.

>> No.33819038


FWIW, The point is that women can easily be competent warriors, and it's only our culture which makes that seem hard to believe.

>> No.33819263

Culture does not change the fact that women are inherently at a massive disadvantage when it comes to physical violence.

>> No.33819288

It totally depends on the setting and context. If she's some gladiator or pitfighter type fighting crude men while the crowd cheers and collectively jizz themselves, then it's totally appropriate to roll around in a chainmail bikini even in fairly gritty and sensible fantasy settings.

But even then, how much time are you going to spend in armour? I mean, unless we only ever meet on the weekly dungeon crawl where we kill all the goblins AGAIN because what is worldbuilding and social rp?

She's not going to be wearing that armour 100% of the time, it's not her casual outfit.

>> No.33819349

What are you talking about!

Upper body strength is a myth perpetuated by the patriarchy!

>> No.33819371

>implying plate armour would be heavy
>implying plate armour sized for women would be heavy

Look at this fucking cunt. Look at him and laugh. And despair for the human race.

>> No.33819407

And the median does not change the fact that many women have no problems with physical violence, and many men do have problems with physical violence.

I'm pretty sure my ex-gf who does ballet on a professional level could beat 50% of /tg/ to death in a no-rules cage fight.

>> No.33819408

Especially depends on how the RPG works and how much money they can burn on porters. If you want to be sensible about it wandering adventurers without their own squires, baggage and the like are unlikely to take a set of full plate with them delving. Gambeson, helmet, some gauntlets/mittens and either a hauberk or breastplate is likely to be it and as you say most of the time they will not be wearing even that. In some places marching in armour will literally kill you.

>> No.33819484


When you start to study combat data, you begin to realize that it's will to kill, not strength or speed, that determines success in combat. And that's not just in modern warfare either. Betting on any two combatants, I'll always pick the geezer over the poof.

Dude, what do you bench? I wanna know.

>> No.33819498

But we are not talking about fat neckbeards. A female athlete in the real world has a weaker grip than an untrained man on average, the gulf between a trained male warrior and a female one is still going to be huge. Especially since men gain muscle faster and easier than women do. Stop pretending most women are comparable to men physically, it helps nobody.

>> No.33819535

>Dude, what do you bench? I wanna know.

How is what he personally benches relevant? Though if you want to bring it up go see the massive gulf between male and female lifting records.

>> No.33819536

>Stop pretending most women are comparable to men physically, it helps nobody.

Did I say that anywhere, mr. MRA-Redditor-autist?

>> No.33819590

>mr. MRA-Redditor-autist?

Well its nice you admit you are just a troll without an argument.

>> No.33819594

>When you start to study combat data, you begin to realize that it's will to kill, not strength or speed, that determines success in combat. And that's not just in modern warfare either. Betting on any two combatants, I'll always pick the geezer over the poof.

Here, have a thumbs up from the only good thing that came out of Metroid Other M.

>> No.33819621

The only person here without an argument is you.

You can look at medians all day, but fact of the matter is that in the real world, averages don't count.

Averages only count in estimations and predictions. They have no value in the present.

>> No.33819639


Hint, it doesn't matter. Fighting is only a contest of strength when both combatants are unarmed. Watch real fights, whether it's SCA heavy, bumfights, or anything. The winner is always the most determined, most prepared, and most vicious combatant.

>> No.33819679

>no value

So the fact the vast majority of women are weaker than the average man has no relevance to the fact women almost never took part in combat? It must be nothing but those evil men perpetuating a culture of oppression right.

Its people like you who put lives at risk by insisting fire departments and the military bring in lower physical requirements for women. Because diversity is clearly more important than effectiveness.

>> No.33819701

Don't forget.

There's no honour in warfare.

>> No.33819707

Too bad warfare has always involved so much other physical shit besides just the actual fight then.

You are basically talking about dueling, and ignoring marching, lugging shit around or fighting for hours and hours in heavy gear and swinging lumps of metal around, or being pushed up against someone shield to shield and trying to not get knocked on your ass.


>> No.33819722

>strength and reach do not matter in combat

Utter nonsense. Also armed, armoured combat in real life included a hell of a lot of grappling despite both parties having weapons.

>> No.33819757

>Its jews like you who put lives at risk by insisting fire departments and the military bring in lower physical requirements for women. Because diversity is clearly more important than effectiveness.
>Its reptilians like you who put lives at risk by insisting fire departments and the military bring in lower physical requirements for women. Because diversity is clearly more important than effectiveness.
>Its greys like you who put lives at risk by insisting fire departments and the military bring in lower physical requirements for women. Because diversity is clearly more important than effectiveness.

ayy lmao

>> No.33819806

>liking shitty heroes

>> No.33819807

>implying that takes strength

If you spend more time in the gym and less time in the armchair, you'd know that marching takes stamina, not strength.

>> No.33819833

>or fighting for hours and hours in heavy gear and swinging lumps of metal around
You've never heard about how commanders in the melee days would rotate units on the frontline to keep their men from becoming completely useless and exhausted?

>> No.33819918


And yet, women still fight all throughout history. Are you saying you feel sorry for them, or that they weren't proper warriors? I can't tell.

>> No.33819920

>Too bad warfare has always involved so much other physical shit besides just the actual fight then.

Doesn't matter.

That's why its a WAR and not a FIGHT. In a war, you can rely on your fellow soldiers to cover your ass in the areas where you're worse.

If you suck at shieldwalling, but have a great aim, clearly it has zero use to put you in the shieldwall. Grab a sack of javelins, and poke some eyes out.

>> No.33819978

>all throughout

In vastly smaller numbers than men did. For what possible reason could you argue otherwise or argue that the physical differences between men and women are not significant?

>> No.33819985

Nice try, Caratacus

>> No.33819989

Both Fatty and Beanpole are wearing very stylized versions of frog-mouth helms.
Smough sees from the slit under his 'chin' and Ornstein sees from the mouth of the lion's 'head.'
Smough's helmet is completely connected to his armor, he has to turn his entire body to look side to side.
Ornstein's helmet is not connected, as he can turn his head slightly in every direction.
If you wear Smough's helmet without anything else on, it is practically floating in midair, as it was meant to connect to the armor.
Ornstein's helmet when worn with nothing else on covers your entire face and neck.

Now what I don't understand is why both armor sets turn from a brilliant gold to a dull silver when you buy them, and why does that glorious crimson plume just disappear on Ornstein's helm?

>> No.33820001

>In vastly smaller numbers than men did.
So what?

All that matters is that it happened.

>> No.33820053

Because git gut faggot

>> No.33820090


The point is that it's realistic, ya dingus. Nothing is more realistic than SHIT WHAT HAPPENED. Nobody's saying women are superior, or that women should be expected to fight, we're just saying it totally happened, and that history is lousy with perfectly good female warriors.

>> No.33820099

not bitchy
not muh oppression
not muh liberated womyn
not "I get to be a cunt because this any had more men than women"

a normal soldier

>> No.33820102

So you don't have an argument.

>> No.33820136


Just "one of the guys" in other words? Like every hot piece of tomboy ass in the army at this exact second?

Yeah, never happen.

>> No.33820140

No what matters are people who put their political ideologies before historical and biological fact. I am fed up of people pretending women are equal to men physically just to make themselves feel better. Or people arguing women did not take part in warfare because of the evil, sexist oppression they were under everywhere for all time. And the relentless exaggeration up of the few recorded examples at the expense of people who achieved far more like our poor friend Caratacus.

>> No.33820150

An important point to make is that female warriors of note (as far as I know) were all nobles or royalty.

I only know of one commoner woman famous for her actions in warfare and that's Kenau Simonsdochter.

She was like the Osama Bin Laden of the 1600's, fighting against the Spanish when they sieged the Dutch town of Haarlem.

>> No.33820179 [DELETED] 

>No what matters are people who put their political ideologies before historical and biological fact. I am fed up of people pretending women are equal to men physically just to make themselves feel better. Or people arguing women did not take part in warfare because of the evil, sexist oppression they were under everywhere for all time. And the relentless exaggeration up of the few recorded examples at the expense of people who achieved far more like our poor friend Caratacus.

>bawwww bawwwww baawwwwww muh redditor rights check ur privilege i wanna be the big bad navy seal i don't want sissy to be the big bad navy seal can i play daddy?

>> No.33820239

Congratulations, you are the perfect example.

>> No.33820242


Well, she seems nice.

Is it just possible that "of note" and "nobility" are sorta related? Kind of a double-bind there.

>> No.33820446

>Maid of Orleans
>Shield maidens
>Troll elsewhere b8man

>> No.33820691

Well, there is certainly something to say for the fact that back in the days, you had to be of noble blood to get in the history books.

>> No.33821142

All kinds. I don't follow /tg/'s trend of bitching about everything ever.

>> No.33821273


Who the hell would want to see Renly rule? Guy was an idiot.

>> No.33821659

>that animu battle-princess dress-armour

Absolutely acceptable.

>> No.33821683

>If it can hold a spear, stand still when ordered, walk forward when ordered, and poke someone hard enough to shove a knife through them then it's good enough 90% of the time.
I sure as shit wouldn't think so, considering how rare battles are.
I want something hardy that can carry its own kit, walk for weeks on end, won't get pregnant or be fought over by its comrades. The fact that it is better in almost every way in combat is but a small bonus.

Not to mention that the woman should be raising children so that my son can do the same thing I am doing when he ascends.

>> No.33821704 [DELETED] 

Nigger nigger niggernigger nigger niggernigger niggernigger nigger niggernigger niggernigger nigger niggernigger niggernigger nigger niggernigger niggernigger nigger niggernigger niggernigger nigger niggernigger niggernigger nigger niggernigger niggernigger nigger niggernigger niggernigger nigger niggernigger niggernigger nigger niggernigger niggernigger nigger niggernigger niggernigger nigger nigger

>> No.33821748

um....did you mean Hawkeye Gough? Because if not.....ew

>> No.33821846

Someone say princesses in frilly battle-dresses?

>> No.33821988

>when he ascends.
Everyone back the fuck off, we've got a Saiyan Prince here...

>> No.33822023

>considering how rare battles are.
say wut?

>> No.33822201

>I know nothing of pre-industrial war
I would have thought that "to the throne" would be implied here.

>> No.33822266


Do you know how fucking rare thrones are chucklefuck?

Unless Prince William turns out to be a fucking Warhammer nerd, shut the fuck up about thrones.

>> No.33822363

The throne is commonly used in the context I used to to mean the monarchy, and thus might not actually involve a throne at all.

>> No.33822489

...next time, check your post before you post it. Because your English skills are abominable.

Also, think before you post it. If combat-capable women are already rare, then there's no value in keeping combat-capable women off the battlefield, because three or four more children won't matter to a fief or nation. Nevermind that in ye olde dayeths, childbirth could kill off a warrior-woman easier than any amount of swordswings or arrows could.

>> No.33822582

>Fighting is only a contest of strength when both combatants are unarmed
Look at this doubletard
You're shaming the whole board with your ignorance, anon.

Captcha: Gustavus opeair

>> No.33824832

I bet you never were in an actual fight.

There's a shitton of things that can end a fight pretty fast, and most fights only last a few seconds.

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.