That doesn't mean that no woman has ever worn armor, or even that no armor has ever been designed specifically for women. Furthermore, we're talking about FANTASY here, "historically accurate" generally means it borrows from our own history in an intelligent way, rather than throwing incoherent things together for "coolness" or out of ignorance. Assuming that people calling for a "historically accurate" fantasy world mean the world must be exactly identical to some historical period and place is just silly, because at that point it wouldn't be fantasy.>>55481187
It's "historically accurate" in the sense of being based on technology and customs that did exist historically, which is perfectly adequate to satisfy the predicate of historical accuracy as applied to fantasy settings.>>55481558>My primary point being, that people can just make up whatever the fuck they want to. Because reality isn't accommodating to their bullshit.
Yeah but there is a balance obviously. One can make a fantasy setting that actually is fantasy, i.e. not an exact replica of some actual historical setting, while also paying attention to actual historical trends to guide cultural and historical development, rather than just saying anything goes.>>55481766
I'd say that participating in a battle in any way, especially willingly, counts as "going into battle". I think a better way of phrasing what you were trying to say is "no professional soldiers were women".>>55482451
I don't think armor is actually that limiting, at least for someone who passes military fitness requirements in the first place. Certain troops (bomb disposal specialists, heavy assault troops) might wear armor heavy enough to slow them down like that, but that isn't your ordinary equipment, it's for those facing extremely hazardous situations, and even then it's at the cost of not being able to remain in the field for long. Regular infantry armor isn't going to slow you to 1/3 speed.