Comment on One to Go by EthicallyChallenged
Well, if they knew how to fight and ganged up on her instead of fighting one at a time they'd probably still win.
But if she was a trained/skilled fighter and they were just "Women in sexy pointless armor holding swords"...but then they'd run like bunnies.
Of course, if we are trying to add "Realism" here, how in the world is the setup to this scene possible?
I mean, are these "Harem Guards" who function to 1. look pretty 2. keep in the harem, perhaps tie up and punish, cute younger girls 3. overwhelm and castrate naked men who aren't the king/king's friends who sneak in...?
They'd be desperate enough to fight then - "King Caligula is paying us 10x a month earning what we would in a year at a tavern, even way more than a brothel would earn... If he falls our families are destitute!" But again they'd all rush her and go for the eyes.
Also, how can a woman who isn't a cliche "Soviet Wife" move in such armor for a while, much less fight even that one sided battle?
Just my thoughts. Awesome drawing, and is that armor a tribute to "The Mercenary"?
IMO the "Chainmail Bikini" was put in by the industry to try to discredit/destroy scifi/fantasy as they butchered it by turning the "New Wave" into P.C. chowder. More or less it came with Marvel's "Red Sonja" more or less "Put a woman in coz...Women's Lib/Equality laws..." Really, she was magically as strong as Conan -but- her magic was a "Chastity Belt" to keep her from just turning the comic into an XXXtravaganza that would make Dr. Wertham rise from his grave. If she let a man bed her without defeating her in combat first she'd become "Just another woman" and the ONLY man who could maybe beat her was Conan who then was too distracted by her to do it - seriously, they made a special ep about that... So it was the 70s with a woman being forced by law/tax break loss threat in the workforce but then quick rules to prevent 'fraternization'...
Myself I'm for "Old school" but the women are buxom barmaids, princesses, harem girls, sexy sorceresses, etc. Sorry but the MEN are the ones wearing armor and fighting.
But if she was a trained/skilled fighter and they were just "Women in sexy pointless armor holding swords"...but then they'd run like bunnies.
Of course, if we are trying to add "Realism" here, how in the world is the setup to this scene possible?
I mean, are these "Harem Guards" who function to 1. look pretty 2. keep in the harem, perhaps tie up and punish, cute younger girls 3. overwhelm and castrate naked men who aren't the king/king's friends who sneak in...?
They'd be desperate enough to fight then - "King Caligula is paying us 10x a month earning what we would in a year at a tavern, even way more than a brothel would earn... If he falls our families are destitute!" But again they'd all rush her and go for the eyes.
Also, how can a woman who isn't a cliche "Soviet Wife" move in such armor for a while, much less fight even that one sided battle?
Just my thoughts. Awesome drawing, and is that armor a tribute to "The Mercenary"?
IMO the "Chainmail Bikini" was put in by the industry to try to discredit/destroy scifi/fantasy as they butchered it by turning the "New Wave" into P.C. chowder. More or less it came with Marvel's "Red Sonja" more or less "Put a woman in coz...Women's Lib/Equality laws..." Really, she was magically as strong as Conan -but- her magic was a "Chastity Belt" to keep her from just turning the comic into an XXXtravaganza that would make Dr. Wertham rise from his grave. If she let a man bed her without defeating her in combat first she'd become "Just another woman" and the ONLY man who could maybe beat her was Conan who then was too distracted by her to do it - seriously, they made a special ep about that... So it was the 70s with a woman being forced by law/tax break loss threat in the workforce but then quick rules to prevent 'fraternization'...
Myself I'm for "Old school" but the women are buxom barmaids, princesses, harem girls, sexy sorceresses, etc. Sorry but the MEN are the ones wearing armor and fighting.
"Also, how can a woman who isn't a cliche "Soviet Wife" move in such armor for a while, much less fight even that one sided battle?"
Well, for starters, real plate armor is nowhere near as heavy as it is often portrayed in schlocky fantasy art. A complete suit of plate armour made from well-tempered steel would weigh around 15–25 kg(33-55 pounds), which isn't very much! It's actually significantly less weight than the full equipment a modern soldier is expected to carry into battle. Plus, it is spread evenly across the body, instead of awkwardly focused on certain parts of the body(like, for example, a backpack full of gear), which makes movement more easy. Remember, the people who actually historically fought in plate armor would require a great deal of mobility compared to the modern day wherein virtually all combat is done at range-it doesn't make sense to assume that armor would heavily restrict movement.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzTwBQ…
www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hlIUr…
So the answer is 'by being a fighter, male or female, who has any level of training/competency upon the battlefield at all, because moving in plate armor is actually not very physically strenuous in the first place, and a normal person can do it fairly well'.
Your other nitpicks are missing the main point of this piece in a bunch of minutia about a hypothetical that no one but you raised-that main point being, of course, that someone wearing armor is going to be far more effective in combat than someone without. Also, if you had done any research you would know that history is full of women who rode into combat in armor, so your last comment is as inaccurate as it is sexist.
Well, for starters, real plate armor is nowhere near as heavy as it is often portrayed in schlocky fantasy art. A complete suit of plate armour made from well-tempered steel would weigh around 15–25 kg(33-55 pounds), which isn't very much! It's actually significantly less weight than the full equipment a modern soldier is expected to carry into battle. Plus, it is spread evenly across the body, instead of awkwardly focused on certain parts of the body(like, for example, a backpack full of gear), which makes movement more easy. Remember, the people who actually historically fought in plate armor would require a great deal of mobility compared to the modern day wherein virtually all combat is done at range-it doesn't make sense to assume that armor would heavily restrict movement.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzTwBQ…
www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hlIUr…
So the answer is 'by being a fighter, male or female, who has any level of training/competency upon the battlefield at all, because moving in plate armor is actually not very physically strenuous in the first place, and a normal person can do it fairly well'.
Your other nitpicks are missing the main point of this piece in a bunch of minutia about a hypothetical that no one but you raised-that main point being, of course, that someone wearing armor is going to be far more effective in combat than someone without. Also, if you had done any research you would know that history is full of women who rode into combat in armor, so your last comment is as inaccurate as it is sexist.
Ha! Oh your response had me in stitches. Good on ya! Well put and well done.