>Going to battle nakeD isnt historically accurate

how about you read my post before you go ACKSCHUALLY MUH PEASANT

im talking about the Gesetae, who were not peasants, they were Mainland Celtic warrior elite and later roman mercenaries.
The same can be said about the entire tribe of the Belgae, at least according to Cesar

They didnt just fight unarmored, they foguht butt naked, they believed it gave them the blessing of their gods, who would view them as courages.
Which is not to say that Mainland celts lacked armor equipment, compared to their germanic neighbours, they didnt lack Iron (Noricum was pretty much where rome would get all its iron from later on) or the techniques to forge proper armor (Roman helmets for example were a Gaulish design)

They chose to do so
And it terrified the Romans



>Muh practicability and sexyness
women warriors are unrealistic.
Every time you go to realism ill go to this because i love how it destroys discussions. it amuses me.
Lets face it, women werent warriors. Maybe one or two in the entierty of recorded history.
And unless you want "Horse archer" to be a character class i wouldnt exactly take the scythians as an excuse for anything.
Female warriors are a romanticised fantasy.
Same as fantasy armor.

Get over yoruself, the entire "but muh realism" crowd is delusional.

>Dragons and realism double standard

Gonna actually disagree with you here. Its not about realism but about believeability.
A Dragon is about as realistic in a medieval setting as an apache attack helicopter is.
one of them is more believeable than the other.
the same applies to many other things, armor is one of these.

As such im largley going to forgive ringmail and studded leather to exist, as long as other people allow Loincloth barbarians and barbarian princesses to exist.
But lets make no mistake, not only are those two equally nonsensical, the former dont even look good

Last edited by Sordak; 13/01/21 06:54 PM.