Worldbuilding Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for writers/artists using science, geography and culture to construct imaginary worlds and settings. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
What are the specific materials? none really, In my game.... I mean worldbuilding project I want this kind of armor to be crafted from different materials but following the same aesthetic guidelines.... like some might make the front plate from a metal, someone's from another metal and some might even make from hardened wood.
So, is this piece of armor comfortable enough to wear and also protective? or is it dangerous and uncomfortable?
Added person inside by Alex's request
TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE BENDYNESS!
The material might work. It seems to be similar to cataphract armor.
The form-fittingness is silly though. Your wearer needs this extreme figure to fit.
For comparison lets see what that looks like on the world famous Olympic swimmer Micky Mick Mick Phelps. Here is it scaled to fit at the armpits.
Even for a suitably shaped wearer, there is no reason for the armor to be so tight-fitting. Remember plate armor historically has a thick layer of padding underneath. Usually at least a gambeson:
With this in mind plate armor should already be unisex.
But most of all, if you want a coat of moveable plates like this then TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE BENDYNESS. The coat should be loose when unworn and belted around the body similar to a chainmail coat. This means it can be tight around the gambeson, by tightening or loosening the belt, while also being wearable by different people by belting differently.
That enables mass production. You can produce these coats without knowing the dimensions of the wearer.
Here are two things that I'd take issue with:
The idea of flexible plates like this is lovely, but it is noteworthy that when people were able to wear decent amount of metal plating then they made sure that their abdomen was well protected.
Consider this greek bronze breastplate (from 600 BC):
And this Italian plate from 1450:
Note that over a period of 2000 years, and some noteworthy changes in metallurgy, those abs were still well protected by a nice rounded curved slab of metal. If you want to keep the pokey things out, you don't mess about with flexy bits where you don't have to, and you don't need them here.
It'll swoosh around a bit, and might add to the wearer's dramatic aura, but that's a lot of fabric swishing about there. If it is all armour, then either a) you're carrying a lot of extra weight when you could just make much more closely fitted leg armour with less material or b) unnecessarily weakening your protection by having a thin large layer of fabric instead of thicker closely fitted layers.
Note that the Italian armor above has much more substantial waist and hip protection than whatever your "semi-flexible matrix" is likely to be.
and some might even make from hardened wood.
No-one used wooden armor other than a shield, once they have access to metal. Metal weapons are just too effective against wood, and metal armor in pretty much any form was evidently much preferred, too.
Remember people in the past weren't daft. Lots of this stuff was tried and then discarded. Everyone would have been happy if decent armor literally grew on trees, but alas it did not.
Aside from the fact that only a few kinds of women would actually be able to fit that specific shape/size, it may be comfortable enough(I don't know the cloth material), but protective?
Hardly. The only things that are more or less okay for protection are the pauldrons and the backpiece, everything else(corset piece) would fail at protecting someone from anything except for vertical slices, and even then the protection would not be much. All of those indenting grooves along the armour are prime fail points for any attacks of a more penetrative nature, as they'll actually help a blade be driven into and get stuck into the armour, sending the person wearing this off-balance with the imparted kinetic forces and possibly even penetrating it depending on the materials, making the 'armour' almost useless.
I'd advise a more solid and centrally bulging chestpiece as was typical of armour throughout history(no boob armour), and use (chain)maille for anything that is supposed to be flexible(such as the abdomen piece) while wearing at minimum light gambeson(or equivalent) underneath if you want this to actually protect you. Also, add gorgets if you want the neck to be protected.
Henry VIII's foot combat armor for competitions held during the 1520 Field of Cloth of Gold Conference held with the King of France.
Note the Tonlet or skirt that replaces the conventional armor pieces covering the thighs. The advantage of this type of protection is that it increases mobility when fighting on foot in tournaments and possibly increases cooling. Disadvantages? You can't ride in it, can't sit down until its removed and if you fall over?
Beyond that, it's much shorter and more practical than your proposal. It covers all the thighs while your drawing leaves the thighs and legs more or less totally exposed from the front which is the direction your most likely to be attacked from.
Something like this is probably as close as your likely to get to your model in terms of 'real world' armor.
Your armour will be awkward and uncomfortable. Sitting down will be a real pain. Riding a horse is probably out of the question. And with no neck protection or groin protection, you have 2 massive vulnerabilities. Unless that skirt thing is just cloth. Then it won't be uncomfortable and a problem for horses. It will just offer no real protection.
If I saw you in a fight, I would grab a spear and aim your for groin, or grab an axe and aim straight for your neck, smashing through whatever you try to block with and allowing my own armour to absorb whatever terrified counter attack you might attempt.
So from the top. Your shoulder plates are nice, but it leaves your arms exposed giving a huge attack opening and seriously reducing your wearers defence. In real armour, your arms being protected was super important because it doubled as defence for the rest of your body. Your shoulder plates also perfectly deflect blows right into the neck. Like so perfectly that any horizontal strike with a sword will if not deflected, hit an exposed arm or exposed neck.
Your middle is arguably fine. The flexible middle bit isn't that big of a deal as long as it can resist piercing. It is a spot a wearer would be worried about, since they can't use their arms to protect themselves. Despite contrary opinion, boob armour is fine. It has minimal effect on armour effectiveness although its obviously better without it. But historically armour effectiveness has actually been sacrificed to make armour look more sexual. It's easy to find men with gigantic fake members attached to the front of the groins that do nothing except get in the way and make it difficult to ride a horse. But they still did it. So if your character wants boob armour. Go for it. There is historical precedent.
Your lower armour is terrible. The most vulnerable part of the lower body is completely exposed. An artery cut in the groin is a death sentence. All you have is presumably a weighted coat that will do little to nothing in an actual fight.
Your armour looks ceremonial. If its job is to stop a single attack while real soldiers protect you, then sure, it's fine. But don't go to war in that thing.
It's not as terrible as some people are suggesting, but it could definitely use some improvement.
So yeah... Smooth it out a bit, polish it up, shorten the skirt. It probably wouldn't fit a normal human since anyone with hips that size wouldn't be able to breathe well enough to fight in that narrow a corset. But if the people in your world aren't shaped like "normal" humans that's not necessarily a problem.
Probably also want something for arm protection. Like with the helmet this could be a separate thing, but your arms are sticking out and vulnerable quite a bit in combat, so something on at least the forearms to protect them is usually a good idea.
