Male Armour

Invisible males are best males, no?

...

This was the one I was actually looking for.

Hey, that was actually fetish armour. All but one of them represented various types of fetishized foreigners in a carefully staged drama of masculinity and virtue.

...

I know that gladiators were the WWE of their day, just seemed befitting of a thread about impractical male armor.

Real shame that we don't seem to have good illustrations of the greeks who wore both muscle cuirass and glans helmets.

Here you go.

Forgot I had this one.

LG Warlord.

...and a complementary LE warlord

Also this.

Bretty good, but is he a raving homosexual who has spent thousands of years fighting against heterosexuality?

I see you and raise you to group pics.

>muh thinspo

On that note, french thinspo Tarzan.

...

We can't forget about Master Monkey plucking the Peaches, no?

>nipples
>armpit

Tactical Fundoshi snipers a best.

100% battle-ready

...

This was the cover art to this game in 1989. Game developers seem pretty equal in their sexualizing of characters.

>no male asses on the cover

Pls.

...

...

>dressing like a jabroni

...

Whoever made this did his best to ignore the big hoplon that invalidates most of his points.

Did Ancient Greeks really leave their arms and thighs unprotected?

>that pic
It's like saying that wooden sticks are viable and practical because cavemen used them.

...

...

>high stockings and mini aprons were respectable male underwear at some point

Why isn't this the case in your fantasy world?

...

>When the wizard's player forgot to buy clothes, but still bought armor for some reason.

Who says it isn't?

Jeez is that a new Desperado design for Adriana?

...

Yes. Bronze armor was heavy, you generally didn't want a huge suit of it.
you could use leather or cloth to try and protect yourself, but it also increases the chances of getting infections if you are wounded.

A lot of the depictions of greek warriors with a shield and loin cloth are pretty accurate.

The female is still pretty hot desu

My fetish for females in in viable armor I guess

>Yes. Bronze armor was heavy, you generally didn't want a huge suit of it.

>bronze's too heavy
>let's use a fuck huge, heavy shield instead

I honestly think that cost was more of an issue than weight, because otherwise they certainly would've opted for a shield that's not large enough to have enough displacement to work as a makeshift boat.

Early greek armour had both arm- and tight-protection, but they eventually figured that they might as well get some use out of that fuck huge shield of theirs.

Who is this moister maker?

...

Champions of Norrath?

It is now.

...

I came as soon as I could, OP

...

Yes, you are unlikely to be hit in the thighs unless you are fighting a midget. People tend to swing weapons at chest height.

For most of history armor meant a helmet, breastplate, and shield. Even today most soldiers wear vest and helmets. Very rarely in history did people cover their entire bodies with armor.

The articulated plate armor that people associate with medieval knights was designed for jousting, and wearing it on the battlefield is as ahistorical as those guys who wear EOD suits in tacticool shooters.

Tactical cock socks need to make a comeback.

>Armour that shows off the good sides of males.
This one shows good side of common sense and protecting like an armor should instead of exposing vital organs to enemy attack.

I thought they said men were funny.

Some did. But funny guys need somber guys so others see the difference.

This armor was not invented until the late 1500s and mostly used in tournaments rather than on the battlefield as fully encasing yourself in armor is not worth the extra weight compared to just using a helmet, breastplate, and shield.

Manliest armor i have.

Second manliest armor i have with 8th femaliest armor to balance it out.

...

...

Loinplate

...

...

It's all you need when you got rock hard abs and thighs of steel.

That's the exact point.

There are other factors than combat viability that feed into whether arms and armour were generally viable.

See also: civilian sidearms.

>The articulated plate armor that people associate with medieval knights was designed for jousting, and wearing it on the battlefield is as ahistorical as those guys who wear EOD suits in tacticool shooters.
Your whole post is a masterwork in being wrong, but this is just disgusting.

>armor that shows off the good sides
Isn't the point of armor to PREVENT showing off sides, good or not?

>rmour that shows off the good sides of males.

There is no good side to men. Your entire "gender" is useless now.

It depends.

See .

>useless
To whom?

To...

>
The articulated plate armor that people associate with medieval knights was designed for jousting, and wearing it on the battlefield is as ahistorical as those guys who wear EOD suits in tacticool shooters.

Hahaha... ahahahahaha.... AHAHAHAHA.... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!

youtube.com/watch?v=qzTwBQniLSc

Whoops messed up the greentext.

>posting modern aluminium replicas of "armour"

As if you've actually proved anything. Armour is heavy and practically impossible to fight in. That's one of the reasons it died out; it's cheaper to pay 50 pikeman to jump on the knight and shove daggers up his ass than to buy and shape all that metal and put it on a guy who's so slow and lumbering he can't run away from the pikemen.

Gr8 b8. Learn some history.

...

Queer eye for the straight guy ARMOR EDITION

Sauce?

Kill La Kill

No, greaves were a thing, but only ancient greek land owners could afford full armor, so most ancient greek armies were made up of commoners wearing nothing and weilding a leather shield and wooden spear - land owners would, depending on the era, either operate on horse back with sword or dismount and work in an elite heavy infantry formation (which is what Hoplites were - bulk of Spartan armies were Helot infantry using everything from slings to wooden spears in loose formations to harry and keep the enemy in a particular position while hoplite phalanxes wandered the battlefield poking the fuck out of anything that didn't move away, safe in the knowledge that they were the most heavily protected, armored and shielded things on the battlefield)

...

...

(Very very heavy skirmishers )

I'm not sure if this counts since he isn't even wearing anything.
I cropped this a while back, but in the original image his crotch is visible.

...

>jj-frenchie-designs-pulp-heroes.jpg

... actually, I wouldn't be surprised if that actually was jj frenchie's legit non-shota-related work

...

Not round enough.

One of my players made this family-friendly a while back.

>Armour is heavy and practically impossible to fight in.
Physically wrong. Even the bulkiest of armors still gave their users freedom of movement, the real upper limit would be on the user's stamina.

>That's one of the reasons it died out
Historically wrong. Armor's popularity waned in direct proportion to the increased efficiency of firearms, and only makes periodic comebacks when the effectiveness of armor against the most widely used ammunition is at its greatest.

>it's cheaper to pay 50 pikeman to jump on the knight and shove daggers up his ass than to buy and shape all that metal and put it on a guy who's so slow and lumbering he can't run away from the pikemen.
Mathematically wrong. Feeding and arming and marching 50 men is more expensive than fully armoring one man. Though that's a really broad spectrum, and most of those people had to pay for their own armor anyways.

...

It's the color work (and subject matter) that had me thinking it. On closer inspection, the shading and actual facial work are all wrong.

Can't even post any images to illustrate because not a one of them is sfw.

(You)