Good pictures of "practical" female armor are hard to find, but have you considered that there are very few historical references for female armor, but HUGE amounts of references for male armor.. that might be a contributing factor.

Edit: Scrubbed most of this post due to Larian saying he didn't want to persue this topic further, which I missed when I started replying.


Do note that historically there was no such thing as female specific armours. Pretty much all armour designs could be worn by women.
As for visual references from history. I'll grant you that it's rare to find depictions of women in any sort of combat role (due to the obvious reasons which can varry from various forms of sexism to some civilization just not having the decency of leaving polaroids behind), but that doesn't mean it's not out there though (15th century depiction of Joan of Arc).

Never said it DID NOT EXIST.... just that its EXTREMELY RARE!

Easy there, no reason to start shouting. The part you apparently got upset over was meant as an addendum to what I quoted.
The point I tried to make was the concept of "female armour" and "male armour". That just didn't exist in history.

And as for your point... tell that to a woman with C-cups trying to get into a man's chest plate.... there has to be Female and Male armor... simple anatomy requires it.

I'll freely admit I'm no expert on the subject (being male and all that), but as far as I know all but the largest breasts can be bound quite flat against the chest. That pretty much elimates the single anatomy difference between men and women right there (well, as far as armour is concerned).
Certain armour designs and outliers in average breastsizes aside; unless the armour in question is tailored specifically to a single man, there really shouldn't be any reason why a woman of comparable height can't wear it.

OK, that's not the only difference, just the most noticeable one... and if you think breast binding is so easy... well i would say try it, but doesn't really work. SO you'll just have to trust me there. Women also "tend to have wider hips, and that makes the armor chaff along the tops of the hips on most women unless modifications are made... there is also the center of balance issue... ever try the "bend at the waist and pick up a chair thing"... it causes the armor to mess up some women's balance if the weight is not distributed differently... i forget exactly how, its been a while since i build a suit of armor for a woman, but i know it's an issue... a minor one, but an issue.

Erm, the issue here isn't ornamentation, but more the lack of uniform on women. That said: I'll admit that I have a certain fondness for the bling of war, but for starters, no sane person would use parade uniforms as combat dress. Well, there were the World War 1 minor powers, but then I somewhat doubt we can call anything that happenend before, during and after WO1 "sane" with a straight face. And to give a more medieval example; anyone recall those big crests that you usually see ontop of the helmets of knights? Sure some people might have worn those things on parades or during tournaments, but there were only a handfull of people insane enough to wear those during actual combat.
Secondly: Saying that a bikini or any sort of stripperiffic outfit is somehow a dress uniform is going to take a lot of convincing - no matter how mugh gold brocade you've put on it.

As for the whole sexism issue: there's a reason why the stereotype of "women don't do geeky things" is still so prevalent, despite the rather huge percentage of women that engage in geeky activities (I don't have actual data, but in my experience it's easily a 50/50 split these days). But the shitty attitude of some men is an eniterly different topic.


Could you perhaps upload and share that collection? I know some women who might be helped with that. As you said, finding pictures of women that aren't sexualized to the point of absurdity can be somewhat of a quest of homeric proporties.

The predominant armor for about two thousand years was mail. Mail is flexible enough that one can literally mass produce it in a few different sizes and call it a day - the later Romans actually did so. Sure, plate has to be fitted very exactingly, but full suits of plate were only in use for a fraction of the time mail was, and there is no way to tell who all wore mail. You can get a general idea of how large the person was, and that is about it. Biological sex? Good luck with that.