Breastplates are historically inaccur-

tfw boobplate is more historically accurate than female warriors

Back to your fjord, berserker

wtf I forgot all about the Greek/Macedonian conquest of the Persian Empire now. Guess those Greeks are just lazy good for nothings who never did much in all of history haha.

I agree, user. These engravings don't provide any tactical advantage whatsoever.

>this thread again
>and again
>and again
>and again forever

Revolver Ocelot

>Got their asses kicked by the pragmatically-armoured Roman legions.
Roman armor was decorated to shit

Roman generals new the importance of AESTHETICS

What good is conquering the Mediterranean if they don't see you pimpin while you do it?

molded breastplates also meant your soldier's HAD to keep up their physical fitness.

None of tightness in the middle bullshit modern armies deal with.

There's a reason why they got their asses kicked.

All nations with shitty arms and armor got obliterated.

>13th century varagian guard is my Armourfu

The fall of Rome had nearly nothing to do with military technologies and everything to do with their weak, badly conducted strategies and flimsy militia born of a century of decadence and corruption.

and rome's earlier victories over nations fighting in the traditional greek style had more to do with their evolving use of new formations than individual equipment

You forgot christianity

Would probably explain why the Roman Empire won entirely through Logistics and Breaking Pacts.

Edward Gibbon please go

Vietnam

No he's quite correct, Christanity basically caused a braindrain because as soon as it was brought in as the official religion of the Empire, the "Pagans" were basically hounded and their temples destroyed.

And many "Pagan" Temples were also Libraries and Universities.

Not gonna lie, I would totally titfuck that armor.

Any theories that rely on the idea that Rome fucked itself through centuries of decadence and dumbing themselves down are bad history that were debunked thoroughly many times.

And now you know why it is kept in an alarmed glass cabinet.

Apart from that, though, it's really good armour.

...

>lmao references
What's next, we gonna quote Monty Python?

>were debunked

Okay, romaboo

>asses kicked by the pragmatically-armoured Roman legions

There's no shame in this

>I learned this directly from my ass

Rome died in the streets of Rome, not the battlefields of eurasia.

Said the retard that does not know anything about history.

You know what people usually wore into combat? Whatever they could afford or felt like using, muh optimum armor was a fucking myth for the great majority of people.

>All nations with shitty arms and armor got obliterated.
What country's education system failed you, user?

To be fair, that's a centurion, not a front-line soldier.

Yeah, because OPs armour is cheaper than normal, usefull

Centurions sorta had to be flashy, so they'd stick out among his regular legionaries. You can see the helmet design has no ear protection, as hearing your commanding officer was more important. This was more of a visual aid, and besides that, are you sure this design was used on a battlefield?

It's literally just codpieces for chicks so I dig it.

The Persians had excatly 10,000 sets of scale armor vests reserved for the imperial guard.
Everyone else wore thick linen. The imperial guard wore thick linen too (in addition to their vests).

You could have /pretty shit/ armor and have better armor than the Persians.

>many "Pagan" Temples were also Libraries and Universities
Universities were a thing then?

Boobplate existing is historically accurate.
Boobplate being used in combat is not.

What do you think all the "schools of philosophy" were?

What about it? The casualties for the North Vietnamese/VC were massive compared to American/South Vietnamese/Australian forces, and that was without being allowed to go anywhere near full military effectiveness. I don't necessarily agree with the person you're responding to, but still.

Any units that actually regularly see combat in competent western nations have better general fitness than any groups of combatants in any previous period of human history, come now.

There are lots of things that are impractical that were used 'in combat'
>Winged Hussars crazy wings
>Antlers on helmets (essentially a lever for anyone fighting you to hit and send your head whipping around
>Elephants
>The early tanks in WW I and lots of experimental weapons utilized throughout WW I and WW II
>Flamberg swords
>The entire practice of judicial combat evolved around making the trial weapons as impractical and weird as possible

Lots of stuff recovered may well have just been one offs of some crazy or vain sod trying something nutty to see if it worked. There's just no accompanying journal from the guy standing near him in formation to tell us 'yeah man that shit totally got him killed' or 'You won't believe this mom, but...'

Anatomic cuirasses were a gimmick and mostly worn by officers, not something the average soldier was lugging around

I cannot emphasize this enough. If humans were always rational, we wouldn't still be having stupid debates over things that have been lingering for hundreds of years.

There was probably a lot of experimentation and decoration with armor and weapons - some people didn't care about practicality, or they were trying to solve whatever problem they thought was important. If looking female was apparently an important enough problem, they'd work to solve it, and boob plate is technically a solution.

Damn that's fucking cool.

What's the main difference between axes and swords in combat? Obviously swords can thrust while thrusting with an axe would be kinda pointless. Swords also seem like they might have an advantage at parrying. I assume axes would hack better than most swords could slash, on account of the axehead being at the end of a long shaft and thus delivering more force with the cutting edge. Axes also have some practical utility.
Is the thrusting and parrying ability of the sword superior to the greater force and sheer manliness of the axe? What are some other axe v sword arguments. What about hammers and maces?
Spearfags need not respond. All the reach in the world won't make you any less queer.

...

>O-okay, so there's historical precedence for flashy armor... but it was just ceremonial! Not for combat!
The people saying this are missing the point. Clearly these civilizations had an ideal for the aesthetics of their armor. Part of the appeal of fantasy is applying these ideals so that they are as practical or common as the people who made them wished they were.
There is literally no reason to sperg over boobplate or abplate in fantasy unless you're running a hard realism aesthetic.

Well supplied with sturdy and effective weapons and munitions by the chinese and soviets, including armor and an air force.

t.amerilard

Nice meme

Vietnam got some modern tech, but a good deal of it was literally just China and the Soviet Union's hand-me-downs with advisers giving them the barest training on how to actually use any of it.

...

Right, like:
Is there a god?
Does existence have a purpose?
Do I have a place in the universe?
Will I be remembered?

The answer is always no.

Anybody that still bitches about sexy armor in a game should be kicked the fuck out.

Underrated

...

Vietcong got basically zero training. They just joined up and got put in a VC squad where the veterans were expected to teach them everything.

Hardly a 'warrior'. Those are female soviet snipers, right? That's soldiers, and they are well known just because they are such an exception.

>soldiers are not warriors
I want everyone to look at this person and laugh at him.

Literally no one believes you.

i think it has to do with training as well as function.
You need to know how to handle a sword so you don't hurt yourself, and skills such as parrying and thrusting are learned with extensive training.
Axes are blunt, heavy, and easy to use, and as you said sport some practical utility. A sword is more slashing, as is an axe, but an axe can cruch better than a sword, and a sword can slash better than an axe.
My guess is, axes were more practical against foes with chainmail or wore lighter plate that were easily crushed, while swords were used to attack unarmored/lightly armored infantry.
But lets be honest, crossbows are best weapons.

It's not like anything of value could come out of this thread anyways.

front left a cute

Predecessors but not actually universities.

axes have a smaller striking surface, fewer attack options and are absolute shit in defense. On the other hand, they're cheap and easy to make, and can kill people pretty easily.

Don't forget an American President that hobbled the Air Force into complete impotence so he could prolong the war so the military would be forced to buy up WWII stockpiles about to go obsolete, because the owners of those arms manufacturers were LBJ's friends.

>When speaking of the statuaries, we have already given the period at which Praxiteles flourished; an artist, who, in the glory which he acquired by his works in marble, surpassed even himself. There are some works of his in the Ceramicus at Athens; but, superior to all the statues, not only of Praxiteles, but of any other artist that ever existed, is his Cnidian Venus; for the inspection of which, many persons before now have purposely undertaken a voyage to Cnidos. The artist made two statues of the goddess, and offered them both for sale: one of them was represented with drapery, and for this reason was preferred by the people of Cos, who had the choice; the second was offered them at the same price, but, on the grounds of propriety and modesty, they thought fit to choose the other. Upon this, the Cnidians purchased the rejected statue, and immensely superior has it always been held in general estimation. At a later period, King Nicomedes wished to purchase this statue of the Cnidians, and made them an offer to pay off the whole of their public debt, which was very large. They preferred, however, to submit to any extremity rather than part with it; and with good reason, for by this statue Praxiteles has perpetuated the glory of Cnidos. The little temple in which it, is placed is open on all sides, so that the beauties of the statue admit of being seen from every point of view; an arrangement which was favoured by the goddess herself, it is generally believed. Indeed, from whatever point it is viewed, its execution is equally worthy of admiration. A certain individual, it is said, became enamoured of this statue, and, concealing himself in the temple during the night, gratified his lustful passion upon it, traces of which are to be seen in a stain left upon the marble.

Is he on a wall?

>sitting in one place hiding all day then taking 3-4 shots before moving to a new place to sit and do nothing is the same as marching in armor, swinging a weapon and being surrounded by people trying to murder you

Word of advice: Never bring your dumb opinions to /k/.

Persian schooling involved accreditation well before Rome fell.
I haven't dug far enough to see if Roman schools did, but I would be surprised if they didn't.

Do you seriously have no goddamn clue as to how sniper teams work?

Tell me what I got wrong then.

I know exactly how sniper teams work, that's how I know it's completely impossible to compare it to ancient soldiers wearing armor and trying to kill someone with a spear or axe before they get killed.

The actual definition of warrior, for one

war·ri·or
ˈwôrēər/Submit
noun
1.
(especially in former times) a brave or experienced soldier or fighter

Just because your headcanon of warrior is medieval knights doesn't mean you're right

You clearly don't. You have no idea the kind of training and discipline a successful sniper team needs. The counter-sniper operations that they have to be ready for, including fucking artillery strikes. The necessity of being able to move swiftly between targets with all their equipment undetected. Being able to stretch out supplies until targets actually are within range, and taking shots that can change the course of battles.

You think the goddamn White Death is any less a warrior because he didn't kill people in melee? This isn't fucking 40k.

I never said it didn't, I said it's so vastly different you can't compare the two.

Spoken like someone who doesn't know pre-Roman conquest Greek military history.

Apples are different from oranges, but they're both fruit.
What I'm saying is, while the way Snipers and Skirmishers do combat are different, their function and bravery are still the same.

Front right cutest

>Words are completely rigid never change in application throughout history

Bet you think modern cruisers are "hardly" cruisers because they don't have sails and are armed with controllable missiles.

I see the /pol/ tard is still hanging around.

Yes, yes you can. You can indeed compare the two. Snipers and other modern soldiers are indeed warriors that can be compared to the soldiers of ancient and medieval times. The bravery, effectiveness in combat, training required, all of that can be compared to warriors of the past.

The White Death is a fucking warrior.

I repeat, don't bring your dumb opinions to /k/.

Go to bed Kitten.

But if you don't TASTE his BLOOD with your HANDS you're not a MAN

Don't you underSTAND

god now im reminded of those people who would chimp out if you suggested white death for a servant in a fate campaign

Blood of Russian is not for tasting.

...

Fucking Christ, I never said anything about that stupid warrior/soldier definition crap, I said that a man marching in armor and fighting people with a sword is so different from a sniper that it's impossible to directly compare them to each other. I don't CARE what you call them. I never said one was better than the other, just that they're DIFFERENT IN WHAT THEY ACTUALLY DO.