Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2025 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
There's a great documentary on Richard III, who had adolescent onset idiopathic thoracic scoliosis (curvature of the spine). He nevertheless went into battle in plate armour. The documentary makers found a young man with that precise condition, which had not been treated with surgery due to complications. He had historically correct armour and saddle made for him, and he underwent training. It's worth seeing in respect to your comment, as although the armour weighs 30 Kg (66 lbs) it does not seem to affect his mobility as much as one might expect. I can't see him mount the horse, but there does seem to be a mounting block. Perhaps with his condition that might have been necessary, but it seems to me that an able bodied knight would not necessarily need it. Not sure if it has regional restrictions, but the video is here.
AFAIK There was specific jousting armor that became specialized to the point of not functioning otherwise (much heavier and limiting iof mobility)
But for functioning combat armor it doesn't make logical sense, all an opponent would have to do is injure your horse and you'd be completely neutralized. (although heavy armor could still case issues see: Battle of Agincourt)
A horse! A horse! My kingdom for a horse!
Thats Bosworth though ;) ... Different Shakespeare play. Agincourt is "Once more unto the breach" or "We few, we happy few, we band of brothers" ...and a whole buch of others... Henry V has a lot of really good lines to yell
Ok but the rock climbing wall, I can't
Once unto the breach is Henry V, but not Agincourt. Harfleur, as I recall.
Well ya movies are fantasy,but medieval knights armor is very heavy ,around 60 pounds n then there's the under paddings very uncomfortable and very cumbersome.they had to dress you; even just a sword is heavy especially with just one hand.
dress a 5 foot kid in full gear n see how well they fight or even walk. Your see why we gave up on the armor.
That's why knights usually went into battle with a lot of their own footsoldiers around them.
And the people claiming it is impossible to fight on foot in knights armour - full plate, with some chain parts and padding beneath - should not forget, that knights trained to fight in armour from a very early age on.
Chainmail also stops arrows, if it's a good one. Crossbow bolts are a real problem though.
Oh, and in the '80s I did quite a bit fighting in a viking re-enactment group, where a couple of those wealthier folks used chain mail. Those 15 to 20 kg aren't much worse than what a modern day soldier takes into battle nowadays...
Never said it was imposable ,I'm just saying There's a reason why we don't wear armor any more.
You could almost call Romes armor slut wear, but they where the baddest medieval army ever known.
There's a lot to be said for speed and agility. Never saw Bruce Lee in armor.
"Yea verily. That lady doth alight upon the pole and writhes in a most vexxing manner. Zounds! I am engorged!"
No, it was much too perilous. :)
..."but doth it tickle thy spleen?"
The Romans probably weren't the baddest, and they definitely weren't medieval...
The reason we don't wear medieval armor anymore is because of the invention of the gun. Bullets punch right through chainmail and plate armor. As for Asian martial arts, they were developed by monks or peasants, people who generally did not, or could not, wear armor. Some modern soldiers wear body armor, which can get pretty heavy.
...even in Sci Fi, the concept of armour is sort of pointless. Space suits are already cumbersome to work in as it is (watch some videos of satellite and ISS servicing EVAs). Now add bulky plates to them. Weight may not pose an issue in a microgravity or low gravity environment, but mass and bulk still do. Also with the idea of beam weapons strong enough to cut through ship hulls, all it would take is one shot from a high powered laser or plasma weapon to breach the suit and you're a goner whether in the vacuum of space or in a hostile planetary environment. Even a micro meteoroids and space junk (like a loose bolt moving at orbital velocity) would pose a serios threat to the wearer. Armor in the future is just as much "fantasy armour" as most medieval styles we see and is pretty much a thing for the cinema, games, and novels.
For example in RPG I play (set about 60 years in the future) this is the toughest amour one can get (heavy milspec), that is if you have the proper connections. Not only is it ponderous looking, it compromises mobility and fatigues the wearer more quickly, as well as can draw unwanted attention from the law enforcement and even paramilitary organizations (illegal for civilians) who will dispatch an HTR team to arrest you or put you down. Try negotiating fire stairs in a skyscraper or moving through rubble on the street in this. Your ride pretty much needs to be an armoured APC just so you can get into and out of it (not going to fit in that nice sleek 300kph all electric sportscar with chameleon polymer that you bought, in this).
I've also seen where a good sniper doing a bullseye doubletap can make even this expensive behemoth almost as useless as a cheap wage slave suit.
Yep... tons of this.
Since the begiining of human warfare, there has been a race between weapon and armour technology. A lot of stuff that worked great, soon became obsolete, due to technological advances and changes in tactics/strategies. There are reasons, why the greek didn't wear their armour made from linen after a certain point in history. Or why the chinese stopped using armour made from sheets of paper. Or why the japanese banned gunpowder weapons (which was a different and interesting way to keep pace with technological adavances...).
So yes, there are many reasons for different types of armour not being used anymore. The main reason isn't weight, though, but technological advances.
The romans had a great army. They were a spectacular force, when they were able to fight on good terrain in their favourite formations. In man to man combat they weren't that great. And not every roman soldier used the same equipment. Cavalry and archers/slingers didn't use the roman standard armour for example.
* - "armour as we know it nowadays, as we can't say what technological advances will be made in the future and what concepts of armour might come up through them..."
And, as much as I love Your posts usually, your signatures and RPGs in total - I've played a couple during the last 30 years - the stuff those game designers (and movie writers) come up with, usually isn't too close to real technology. A suit like that one shown would sure be nice to have in a situation where close combat weapons (blades, axes and their like) would be used. Or probably even small caliber guns. So it would be a good solution for certain combat situations. Like invading a country with a technological backward society. One guy in a suit like that probably could - with enough ammo - conquer the whole Aztec kingdom
I *think* the whole concept of "skimpy armour" was born by artists btw. Especially those, who were responsible for all those pulp fantasy books, showing off overly muscled barbarian males and females on their covers, due to the targetted customers being male around the age of 15 or so...
Artists (and game designers and movie writers and many other people) usually don't bother much with how reality would work with the inventions of their creative minds. They usually don't have to, as most of their customers don't want to be bothered with reality anyway.
...Uhura said it best....
Ah, but it only is fantasy, if you want it to be... if one wants to render some historically correct scenes, all that skimpy armour (tm) isn't any help. Although of course there wouldn't probably be that many female warriors around anyway, to wear some of that "catwalk armour" sets.
Conan style "fight in not much more than a loincloth" is correct for its 100+ BC ancient world time period and in hot countries. Remember this is over 1000 years before the medieval period.
I love this quote - "between the years when the oceans drank Atlantis and the gleaming cities, and the years of the rise of the Sons of Aryas, there was an Age undreamed of, when shining kingdoms lay spread across the world like blue mantles". Which puts Conan in a BC time period as atlantis was a greek myth.
Celts often stripped for battle and fought naked. Egyptians and nubians didnt wear much due to the heat. Greek and even roman armor (the roman empire is actually too late for Conan times) could be described as skimpwear compared to a medieval knights armor, And these are the more powerful kingdoms - the smaller kingdoms and "barbarian tribes" would have had less.
And the biggest thing was unless you were in an organised professional army like the romans, the only armor you had was what you owned - which for most people was none.
Anyone who's interested in the 'true facts' of all things medieval might want to check out some of the enthusiasts on the youtubes. For example skallagrim, schola gladitoria, shadiversity, metatron, to name a few. All kinds of cool stuff, from everything you ever wanted to know about armor, swords, etc, to how people walked before the invention of hard-soled shoes (they led with their toes).
Henry was also present at the siege of Bologne, but I doubt he swung a sword during that encounter. For some reason I thought Henry had actually fought (rather than just commanded), but I think that honor goes to Richard III, who both fought and died at Bosworth.
No matter before or after swords ,gun powder or lazers.It's common sense that weighing n slowing your self down is a bad idea.
look at history from the start of time all the way up till to day. Does a cumbersome army win ?
Hmmm... depends if it's knights against peasants... then most likely yes. If it's knights against Seal Team 6.... then no.
Ah ,but the paradox is Seal Team 6 are modern day Peasants
Peasants with automatic weapons.
Well, considering the amount of equipment a roman footsoldier carried with him, yes. Quite often they did. Especially against armies with less cumbersome armour and equipment. Unless they were caught in troublesome terrain, like the german woods for example, with a steep rise to one side and a swamp to the other, were three legions in marching order were caught a bit unprepared and slaughtered by those germans, without roman armour...
And when the german peasants revolted in Luther's times, the heavily armoured knights also had the better end on their side. Slaughtering unarmoured - so assumed to be fast and dexterious - untrained and not really combat-ready peasants as a fighter trained for combat for many years, while wearing heavy armour even when training, and having more knowlede of tactics, strategies and man to man combat seems to top dexterity quite often, methinks...
One can also take a "logical" look at the "armour is to cumbersome to fight effectively" therory: if it was, then why did over enhanced periods of time - several centuries - people try to get as much armour as possible to be less vulnerable in a fight? Weapon kills man -> next man tries to get armour to stop getting killed and succeeds, until an advance in weapon technology is made and a new armour is needed... and this went on and on and on until the crossbow and later gunpowder weapons appeared, against which most armour that could be produced at the same time in history was useless. It took a while 'til technology came up with ways to even stop most bullets.. and now the race is on again, to find the weapon that can't be stopped by modern "armour".
Seal teams usually wear armour, btw. only it's technologically advanced so that it isn't as cumbersome as those "flak jackets" that were used 20 years ago.
So yes, even nowadays people who get into combat situations regularly wear armour to have better chances to survive. And they usually put it over vital body parts, which usually is where "skimpy armour" is lacking the most...
And there have been heavily armoured "knights" even before the roman times -> scythian heavy cavalry "Cataphracts" which were quite successfull in building an empire, too. Which usually means winning a lot of battles against lesser armoured (and skilled...) people.
The only real advantage that female skimpy armour might offer, is the distraction of the male opponent, who, as we all know, will automatically enter a state of confusion when facing an female opponent clothed to breed instead of being dressed for fighting. Yes, we males are that simple to distract...
I think Val3dart did a great job with the armour and if the only complaint is the heels, use different footwear. Can not believe no one else on this thread didnt suggest that...lol
There's a reason armor was a thing.
...the trick is the armour in question is for G8F so what armour boots to substitute as footwear tends to not play well with autofit when transferring between different model bases, particularly like Genesis "Classic" and G2?
Medieval combat armor weighed about the same as modern firefighting gear. Yes, it's quite heavy, but with training and practice, you can do quite a lot in it.