Of course well-rounded breasts are the best kind of protection!
As we all know, breasts contain a layer of sub-plotanium fatty tissue. These fatty tissues are capable of withstanding repeated hits from a 40mm cannon at 400m distance. Thanks to the elastic properties of female breasts, said 40mm rounds will then be bounced back the same distance and destroy the weapon which fired said projectile.
Period pictorial sources commonly show Achaemenid Persian troops with no head protection other than the ubiquitous tiara hat of the Iranic peoples, even ones wearing solid body armour - and this was certainly not for want of good helmets in the region as for example the old Assyrian conical type was still in widespread use. (They might certainly have worn close-fitting skullcaps under those hats ofc but that's conjecture.) The Dacian Getae apparently went even further, with even the otherwise armoured elite often eschewing helmets for religious reasons - they believed in transmigration of the soul, in a sense considering themselves immortal; baring your head to the heavens, much like baring your body to the enemy, was a declaration of indifference to death and mortal danger and a willingness to trust in fate and the gods.
And for much of the Roman Republican period the equites - the aristocratic cavalry who certainly weren't short on money for war gear - fought more or less unarmoured partly out of sheer machismo; for that social class battle scars were considered a mark of distinction that gave you a certain amount of added "street cred" in politics later in life. Greek horsemen, equally mostly wealthy aristocrats (as usual for cavalry in settled cultures), similarly mostly went with minimal to no armour and during some periods (the Peloponnesian Wars most notably) it was standard for hoplites to go quite unarmoured too in the interests of mobility (and ability to raise more of them). Period battle accounts suggest it wasn't unusual for the helmet to be left off too with only the accompanying padded cap being worn for a bare minimum degree of protection - which could quite come back to bite you in the ass if the phalanx had to endure extensive missile fire due to circumstances...
There's incidentally suggestions that the Thebans, who had something of a near-literal cult of physique going, may sometimes have gone into battle outright naked which was rather unusual in Classical Greek warfare even during the no-armour periods.
Actual nudity also served an offensive psychological function as a kind of unmissable proof of a certain sort of death-defying mindset a lot of warriors really rather would not have to deal with in an enemy; certainly both Greek and Roman accounts suggest the troops of both found the Gaesatae very unnerving.
Anyways, the point is that in the setting there exist means other than covering yourself in protective material to shield yourself from enemy weapons; no doubt quite expensive and hence not terribly common (eg. most human troops we see just go with good old plate), but conversely that much more statements of wealth and status and certainly rather lighter and more comfortable to go around in than layers of metal and padding. Put this way - if you can afford to get a magical garment that offers protection equivalent to, say, a full mail hauberk with a fraction of the weight and none of the heat, discomfort and inconvenience... why wouldn't you get it? (Also easier to wear in everyday life which may be highly desirable if, say, assasinations by rivals are a concern - and the politics of the Empire sure sound ruthlessly cutthroat enough for that...) Can presumably still throw regular armour on top of it too if circumstances warrant and/or apply the same enhancements to serious protective gear if such "turbocharged" protection is desired, but that isn't necessary for going into battle usefully protected. And tromping around the battlefield in such kit by itself advertises your means and importance (ergo marking you as someone important and worth capturing instead of summarily killing if it comes to that).
Conspicuous consumption in its own way, just like decorated armour.
Period pictorial sources commonly show Achaemenid Persian troops with no head protection other than the ubiquitous tiara hat of the Iranic peoples, even ones wearing solid body armour - and this was certainly not for want of good helmets in the region as for example the old Assyrian conical type was still in widespread use. (They might certainly have worn close-fitting skullcaps under those hats ofc but that's conjecture.) The Dacian Getae apparently went even further, with even the otherwise armoured elite often eschewing helmets for religious reasons - they believed in transmigration of the soul, in a sense considering themselves immortal; baring your head to the heavens, much like baring your body to the enemy, was a declaration of indifference to death and mortal danger and a willingness to trust in fate and the gods.
And for much of the Roman Republican period the equites - the aristocratic cavalry who certainly weren't short on money for war gear - fought more or less unarmoured partly out of sheer machismo; for that social class battle scars were considered a mark of distinction that gave you a certain amount of added "street cred" in politics later in life. Greek horsemen, equally mostly wealthy aristocrats (as usual for cavalry in settled cultures), similarly mostly went with minimal to no armour and during some periods (the Peloponnesian Wars most notably) it was standard for hoplites to go quite unarmoured too in the interests of mobility (and ability to raise more of them). Period battle accounts suggest it wasn't unusual for the helmet to be left off too with only the accompanying padded cap being worn for a bare minimum degree of protection - which could quite come back to bite you in the ass if the phalanx had to endure extensive missile fire due to circumstances...
There's incidentally suggestions that the Thebans, who had something of a near-literal cult of physique going, may sometimes have gone into battle outright naked which was rather unusual in Classical Greek warfare even during the no-armour periods.
Actual nudity also served an offensive psychological function as a kind of unmissable proof of a certain sort of death-defying mindset a lot of warriors really rather would not have to deal with in an enemy; certainly both Greek and Roman accounts suggest the troops of both found the Gaesatae very unnerving.
I have no knowledge regarding Achaemenid Persian troops, and so I will not comment on them.
Regarding Equites, you would be correct regarding the Mid-Republican era (There is a scarcity of knowledge regarding the Early era). I believe that the lack of sufficient armour in the period is likely due to several factors, firstly being that armour was not exactly necessary given that Equites were not commonly used for charges and thus were not likely to be exposed to extensive hand-to-hand combat, and given that armour can impede or otherwise be a source of annoyance for a rider, it is likely that they did not wear much armour (This was probably a similar case with other Italic/Socii cavalry, with little armour worn excepting perhaps cardiophylaxes). The Equites had shields for their defense which when paired with a Hasta or Xyston held from an over-arm position with the shaft pointing downwards at an angle covering the front, allows for a horseman to effectively resist most hand-held weapons from reaching him. In this case, given that extensive engagements were not likely, the Equites likely dispensed with their armour, or indeed, went bare-chested as several depictions show, they were protected enough by their shields and via efficient usage of their spears.
Additionally, I do not think that the majority of Equites would have money to spare. Considering that Equites were liable to owning horses in order to stay 'Equites', they also had to be able to afford all the amenties and costs that goes alongside the maintenance of such horses, which likely left them with little money to hand. At best, Equites could theoretically afford Cardiophylaxes, or possibly Spolas or similar Tube-Yoke cuirasses.
Following the First Punic War, however, the Equites quickly adapted to wearing Lorica Hamata, Squamata or possibly musculata. This is also likely the case with the Socii. I'd imagine that the booty gained from latent successive military victories ultimately funded the relative up-armament that is seen in the Late-Republican 'Polybian' era, which is reflected in the up-armament of the Equites also.
Regarding Greek horsemen, I would refute you with Xenophons writings, some of which regard how Cavalry should be armed and armoured. In one of these writings, he heavily advises that proper armour should be worn and that it should be well fitted, and advises that helmets similar to the boetian helmet should be used by pretty much all cavalry. The Spolas was also likely used amongst Greek cavalry, and it's usage was likely very wide-spread.
Does this mean that cavalry existed that did not have armour? Yes. But, they were likely performing only with a skirmishing role and possibly with helping to capture/kill routing troops from a battlefield. They thus did not require much in the way of protection.
Regarding Citizen hoplites, you would have a point. Circa 500-300 B.C.E, there was a decline in armour usage, though the reason for such an occurrence is wide-open for debate. However, most hoplites who could afford to, wore 'Spolas' in this era, likely constructed from rawhide panels with multiple layers in each, which should offer substantial protection. This form of armour likely imposed little impediment to mobility in the way that the previous 'Bell' shaped Cuirass could, which was probably why the Spolas and similar forms became widespread in this period.
However, the poorest hoplites likely did not have armour at all. But, this is not necessarily a problem, given that most combat within Hellenic Greece was centered around Hoplite-centric warfare, with very brief exchanges of missile fire from Archers or slingers to be expected. Given this, poorer hoplites were likely not exposed to too-much danger, given that the aspis shield that was used was both highly durable and offered a good deal of coverage... is further protected by a tight formation... which would render most opposing attacks to be ineffective. At best, he might receive glancing spear injuries either from a mis-directed thrust, or a draw-cut from the edge of a pulled-back spear. It would be quite hard to kill an opponent, even one who is unarmoured, within a formation that is backed up by extremely durable and solid shields.
As you note, missile fire can be very effective against hoplites, especially unarmoured ones. Sphacteria comes to mind, as does Xenophons anabasis, whereby he recruits a number of Rhodians from amongst his hoplite forces to act as slingers, who through the usage of lead glandes manage to outrange the Persian slingers by roughly two times. This should be roughly 400 metres distance, assuming that Xenophon is an accurate source. I believe that Xenophon is an accurate source, given that there are World-record holders who have exceeded that distance with an ovoid stone of 52 grams.
With fist-sized stones (~100-200 grams) hurled to about ~50 m/s, it is very likely that the Persian Slingers were able to throw to 200 metres and possibly further. Slingers such as Luis Pons Livermore are able to regularly throw stones of this weight to a similar velocity. For reference I have slung a limestone rock about 180 metres, So I can personally say that such a distance is possible.
I am personally very careful regarding the Thebans. I certainly don't think that there is any basis of fact regarding there being 'Naked' Theban warriors. They certainly had a band of efficient Homosexual hoplites though.
Regarding the Gaesatae, their nakedness and 'battle-willingness' did unnerve the Romans, but I would argue that, arguably, the Carnyx likely had a bigger impact on the Romans, for which we have multiple statements referring to their usage in battles.
Whilst I am not really debating that certain troops did not always necessarily wear armour, due to varying circumstances, there is a much greater number of accounts where, when it is available, people will up-armour as much as they can get away with... and thus rests my point, which is that there is a relative shortage of historical parallels wherein people will willingly refuse to wear portions of their armour or otherwise refuse to wear a helmet, unless there is a certain context to do so. From my point of view, anyone who decides to toss their helmet away willy-nilly whilst in the middle of a battle is an idiot who is putting not only himself, but potentially his comrades and also the formation at risk, and that man would probably receive the ass-beating of his life by his commander after said battle. Of course, an Orcish commander might not view it in such a way, but I'd imagine that a Roman Centurion would have given the soldier a 'Castigatio' on the spot.
For a militarily important person like Sabia to not wear a helmet or proper armour... is pretty stupid in my opinion. Though, as you have stated, she could have enchanted armour.
Of course, given that this is essentially an interactive Porno game, I probably shouldn't invest so much time regarding the comparison to RL armour/armour usage when magical-esque enchantments et cetera exist, which is pretty much an Out-of-context (OOC) problem regarding Real-life history.
****
Edit:
From Xenophon's 'On the Art of Horsemanship': Chapter 12
they lost the drive on this game, even the art packs are taking an eternity now.
It's not a good sign, they barely give updates anymore, feels like the game might get canned.
they lost the drive on this game, even the art packs are taking an eternity now.
It's not a good sign, they barely give updates anymore, feels like the game might get canned.
Not sure if that is the case with Nomo, but awhile ago Sierra did said that the only thing she felt doing at the time was next TLS update and writing (which ment novel, not game dialogue)... whether that changed now that she completed her novel or not is another question. In fact, I'm not sure if novel is complete, but she did gave something to her $10 Patreons last week.
Not sure if that is the case with Nomo, but awhile ago Sierra did said that the only thing she felt doing at the time was next TLS update and writing (which ment novel, not game dialogue)... whether that changed now that she completed her novel or not is another question. In fact, I'm not sure if novel is complete, but she did gave something to her $10 Patreons last week.
I agree with you and Sierra actually have a rather good communication with her Patreons (on her own Patreon)... we get weekly updates and pretty much know what she's currently working on. Why the situation is like this here I have no idea.
You're welcome. There'd be more where that came from if I could scrape together the energy to nitpick about a bunch of things in The Sextinati's reply... :v
Please, if you wish to mention someone, or possibly 'backchat' another user, please use a @, followed by their name. like @ RNDM, which when used should be like @RNDM
Now, whilst we are here, I am not sure if you are attempting some form of 'back-talk', but the phrase "scrape together the energy to nitpick about a bunch of things in The Sextinati's reply" leaves me to think that it is a possibility. In which, I feel that either mentioning me, or otherwise making a PM or et cetera, would be a polite thing to do when you are mentioning somebody.
If people are going to talk 'behind' my back, afterall, I would prefer to know about it.
Of course this might not be true and you are not trying to backchat me, and If so I should apologize... but this is the internet after all, hence I have a somewhat Cynical view of things.
You're welcome. There'd be more where that came from if I could scrape together the energy to nitpick about a bunch of things in The Sextinati's reply... :v
Now, whilst we are here, you might as well tell me what is wrong about my reply. You don't even necessarily need to site sources or take the time to write anything in depth if you don't want to. I am here, a human, and I seek to learn as much as possible about the world before I fatefully die.
And, as such, I would be happy to see what points you have to raise, and to hear what you have to say, so that I might either consider that either you are wrong, or that you are right, and thus that I am wrong, that I might learn. I certainly could be wrong on a few places, but majorly, I feel that what you have said, mainly referring to your first post, is wrong.
I feel that, what you have said is not only wrong, but could lead others to forming the wrong opinion about history. And, if you love history just as much as I love history, perhaps you would listen again, and hear my words not as an affront to you, but as words from a lover of history. And, as I love history, so to shall I defend it, and so my know my main contention of what you have said, and perhaps realize my 'Point' of view, is from a love of history. You are free to hate me or ignore me afterwards.
There's no shortage of historical parallels to this; people who certainly could afford to wear solid armour would decline parts - most often the helmet - or even all of it basically just to show off; and even humble warriors might fight outright naked as a statement of their fearlessness.)
See bolded, the word helmet, preceded by several other words. These words are my biggest problem with your whole statement. It could entirely be a problem of semantics...
But to me, It were as though you are stating that soldiers will willingly, willingly decline to wear a helmet... all soldiers. That all soldiers will willingly decline armour.
Are you thus, making the assumption that because certain groups went about naked such as the Gaesatae, that everybody else would fight naked and without helmets?
Do you mean to state that Orlando Bloom in Kingdom of Heaven, or Arn from Arn - The Night Templar, are both accurate representations... both of whom, because they willingly throw away their helmets, as shown in the movies, are following along with some historic precedence? They, afterall, are discarding their helmets and rushing into direct combat!
Do you see where I am coming from?
The historical precedence, whether you like it or not, is that People are very likely going to wear armour, whenever and where-ever they can, so long as they can afford it, and if the context/situation/scenario allows it. Helmets especially. This is in following with the Historical prescedence of Real-life history.
Can you recite the number of times where people willingly refrained from owning armour?
You will note, that there are only a few exceptions. You should note that I have already listed one, as regards the 1500-1600's, where lesser and lesser armour is worn, due to both the emergence of field cannons and the widespread adoption of firearms. You, likewise, have stated the Hellenic Greek period following the Pellopensian war. Two instances so far.
From my point of view, it is not so much 'Historical precedence', so much as the opposite. It was a historical oddity, but not the precedence.
This, I feel, is followed very well by Medieval sources, particularly Assizes regarding weapon ownership and military service. Practically all High-Late medieval documents pertaining to that subject are very strict in regards to Armour and weapon ownership. Fines were issued to people not owning armour or weapons. Not owning a Helmet or particular garment of armour was not merely something paltry issue, It was punishable by fines. Refute me on this!
The way you have made the statement, is that it seems you are stating that "Everybody declines parts of their armour just so they can show off"... which then leads me to the point "Why wear armour, then?"
This is my problem. You can tell me to fuck off, or go suck a bag of dicks. At least see my point.
Refute that as you will, you are correct regarding several of your points, such as concerning the Greek's following the Pelopensian war, but you are not entirely correct regarding the Equites, if you are referring to the Equites of the Late Republic, for which there are numerous depictions that have been found supporting the belief that they were wearing armour at this point, the primary pictorial evidence being the Bas relief from Domitius Ahenobarbus, but also various finds of currency showing armoured equites dating to the Late Republic, and Polybius's works, followed by the fact that there are many academics who hold a similar opinion as I do regarding the subject in question.
But until you can find a large variety of written documents or sources, it would be virtually impossible to dislodge me from my opinion.
This opinion of course, likely goes by the name of "I'll keep my armour on until I'm in my grave." Because, after all, I would rather wear armour over no armour at all, which if I were to take your words at their literal literary meaning, implies that I am against 'The Historical Prescendence'.
Am I supposed to wear nothing, are you to expect me to survive in a military engagement with merely my cock for a sword? Armour is useless, after all, lets discard it entirely, It's a historical precedence!
I'm an Armourous man, and I am rarely content with anything less than several whole suits of armour, of course I shall be contrarian to what you have stated when your whole comment is pretty much phrased to sound this way!
Now, what else have I raised that you refute. The existence of Rawhide Spolas? The existence of Xenophon's writings as regarding cavalry? That I have agreed with you as concerning civilian hoplites being relatively unarmoured? That Sphacteria was real? That Slingers don't exist? That I don't have much knowledge regarding Achaemenid troops and am thus the worst human being in existence? That I surely can't be affirmative that some of what you have said is correct... because I am obviously not human? Could some things of which you have stated be wrong, or is that simply not possible?
If you think my writing takes any less energy than it takes you to do so, you would find that you would be sorely incorrect. Yet, here I am. If it takes too much energy, you may quote those questions above and give a yes or no answer to them like some form of Questionnaire.
Even if we do find ourselves at a crossroads, and you do not wish to respond,
Please refrain from making statements like this, especially without mentioning me. If you love history as much as I love history, then surely you would like to have a civilized debate, and not resort to what I feel could be interpreted as 'Back-talking'. That, in my opinion, is neither representative of a good debate, nor does it reflect very well on yourself.
After all, I have not made a backwards comment regarding you, even though I am very much opposed to what you have written regarding your previous post, and it is both unfair that you have potentially back-talked me, whilst I in likewise manner have not done the same with you, nor would I ever do so in the future (I should hope) towards you.
I've no problem with people talking shit about me nor making snide remarks or et cetera... so long as there is one condition in mind. That I am informed about it (Via quote or et cetera), and can thus raise my own voice with which to bark and bite in my defence, and If need be, to bite back with similar banter, which should hopefully not be too insulting, but to get my point across.
I would rather not be in some form of Kangaroo court held by people without my knowledge.
****
Edit: Some sources regarding Medieval assizes and medieval rules regarding armour.
For a second there I had to pinch myself to make sure I wasn't still in college in some history class I accidentally fell asleep in. Regardless, @TheSexinati you are very correct about the helmets thing. As far back as I am aware most people realized the basic principle of "Too much damage to your head and you die, so you should protect it in battle." As far as I'm aware there is very little evidence of people NOT using helmets in battle, besides romanticized paintings and stories meant to exaggerate one side. There's much more in the way of evidence towards people using helmets in battle than against. And generally those who didn't use helmets ended up dead during the battle, big surprise there. Though, in the sake of honesty, my specific historical knowledge lies in the 19th century military history, not so much in the Renaissance, Medieval, Antiquity or earlier eras.
Well, if you think you were in a college class, I should take that as a sign of praise, and not only for myself.
I've only ever attended High-school, and Never really had aspirations for higher tertiary knowledge (Virtually all my teachers sucked, not because they were shit, they were bat-shit boring and un-interested in teaching so I never really paid attention in school), so If I am suddenly sounding like a College or University student, that is pretty cool.
Though, in the sake of honesty, my specific historical knowledge lies in the 19th century military history, not so much in the Renaissance, Medieval, Antiquity or earlier eras.
In the same vein, I do not have not much knowledge regarding the 19th century, even though it is pretty much the only history we have in Western Australia besides Native Aboriginal history.
Well, if you think you were in a college class, I should take that as a sign of praise, and not only for myself.
I've only ever attended High-school, and Never really had aspirations for higher tertiary knowledge (Virtually all my teachers sucked, not because they were shit, they were bat-shit boring and un-interested in teaching so I never really paid attention in school), so If I am suddenly sounding like a College or University student, that is pretty cool.
In the same vein, I do not have not much knowledge regarding the 19th century, even though it is pretty much the only history we have in Western Australia besides Native Aboriginal history.
Trust me, it doesn't take much to sound like you're in a college class. Basically the same thing as any other class, just with some slightly higher difficulty, sometimes. It's really not that much different from regular schooling besides lectures, being able to actually skip them, having pretty flexible schedules, and research essays.
And as for that second part I'm just now realizing I should've gotten coffee instead of tea. I meant 20th Century, not 19th. Although I do know a bit about the 19th century, but most of it is Naval knowledge, not so much Army, despite my interest in it. But besides changes in weapons technology, for army's, I'm not sure there was much change in any sort of body armor from previous centuries, as it was agreed upon by that point that armor was pointless against musket and rifle ammunition, seeing as they could penetrate through most plate armor, and anything thicker would be a pointless waste as the soldiers would just be too heavy to reliably move around the battlefields.
