Essay - Women Warriors: Fantasy vs Historical

Apparently, the lack of Armors with featured breast shaped is rather unusual in fantasy setting, and most, if not all, historical armors give less feminine figure to the women warriors, who are supposed to represent beauty and warfare in art. Take a look at the Horny Viking shown on the left and compare her with those women warriors on the right. They have little or no makeups, face full of dirt, eyes with killing stares, and most importantly, they would smell after having to fight inside their thick armors of them. The Horny viking on the other hand, is clean & mean, badass fighting maiden, giving the image of the true amazon that combines true female beauty and ferociousness (although i have to admit, she lacks the muscle to support the strength image department). After all, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder right?

In fantasy setting, it is generally acceptable that women's clothing have to show their secondary sexual characteristics such as breast, hair, cleavage, hips, thighs etc. This is mainly done for the audiences, which statistically made up of men by majority. No doubt, with few imagination, this has led to the birth of fancy, curve-fitting costumes, or even bare clothing at all (Battle Bikini?). Such attires, do give advantages in terms of movement, flexibility and light-weight...although they are impractical when in comes to protection.

For example, Breast Plate that are shaped like "Breasts" (as shown) to fit around the cleavage, while *ahem*, aesthetically cool, would actually be very dangerous to use in real life. The shape of the curvature creates a wedge around the sternum and ribs, which if struck with a blow, would direct the force to the bone (instead of distributing it), potentially breaking the ribs and killing the users. The curves could also deflect any incoming attack to the chin, neck or even stomach which could lead to user's fatality. Intricate decoration could also lead to danger, since the protruding part the armor could catch any weapon strike, resulting in the delivery of blunt force. Plate armor is designed with a mind that, not only it must protect the body and allows flexible movement, it also needs to deflect any incoming attack to avoid that blunt damage.

One can argue that fighting with minimal clothing is no stranger to historical warrior of both sexes. Indeed, Many ancient cultures, like the Greeks, Celts, Picts, Native American and various African tribal groups practice fighting with minimal/or no clothing at all. Some took place as ritual fighting, others took place as real combat. It could be justified, given the fact that back then, proper protective clothing in the form of body armor were quite expensive and/or very labor intensive to be made. Also, warfare were mostly ritualized and involved one on one fighting, though in some cases the aim was to defeat and capture your opponents than to kill them outright. Using body protection could be considered as cowardice. These were mostly prevalent in the Early Human Civilization, where organized warfare were fewer in numbers and standing armies were almost non existent.

However, warfare became more brutal and society became more and more sophisticated, body armors became a necessity and the idea of fighting with minimal or no clothing at all gradually became viewed more as suicidal than as pure raw bravery. Discipline, on the other hand, were an important factors in the outcome of the battle. For example, while the roman armies may have been decimated or defeated against the onslaught of "Barbarians", with some of the fighting in "naked", the Romans eventually came out as a victor, thanks to it highly organized, trained and disciplined legionaries, despite it's comparatively smaller number. As one historian said, Rome was defeated numerous times in battle, but they always won the war.

Later, missile weapons grew stronger and it's application became more and more sophisticated. From Composite Bows, Javelins, Slings to mechanical weapons like Batista, the need to protect oneself from these threat became more and more important. Battlefield injuries also needed to be taken seriously. Fighting with exposed body parts could also increase the risk of body injuries. Realistically speaking, battlefield wounds resulted in more death than the "cool scars". The reason being is that proper medical attention was not properly understood, and the lack of hygiene practice could turned a minor wound into gangrenous infection that would lead to death. So there's plenty of good reasons why armor was worn back then.

The growing sophistication of battlefield tactic and warfare would mean that, the more protection the warriors had, the more likely he/she would survive. Of course, all of these could be discounted when creating one's fantasy world, since the limit is always up to the author's creativity.