Though it looks cool, my point is... it is not logical.
...just needs a strap to connect the cuisses to the torso armor, or the whole leg armour will fall off after two steps. (from personal experience wearing armour....ouch!)
WHY HAVEN'T I SEE THIS B4??!! WHERE THE HELL HAVE U BEEN ALL THIS TIME IN MY LIFE???!!!
And high heels are a safety risk in a fight, period.
I'm sorry, i just felt the need to point that out.
That said, there were specialized armor piercing swords (the so called "Estoc", or Tuck Sword, which is absolutely a thrusting weapon). I would assume that these could be effective in the thrust against mail armor.
but yeah, never underestimate chainmails, there's a reason they are available in almost every RPGs.
Which is a good one, by the way.
I don't think you would find an example of those!
But if I had ANY complaint...it would not be the armour.
Half of Europe was trying to make every armour different from the last one!
No...its that stupid weapon. Obviously this girl is only three feet high!
Could this armour exist? Well, we are looking at two armours now arn't we. The legs don't go with a chain mail top. So would it exist... Oh, certainly it exists. And of course, you would no more fight in it than you would race around a race track in a Cadillac Motor Car. Such armour is made to see and be seen in.
So as a professional Armour Maker myself, I see a young girl dressing up in her brothers armour, and the odd flares are easily no different from some of the wild Rococco stuff which is actually "period" . Some have bitched about the high heels. High heels, again, are period, but only for men. And you need heels of some kind to be able to ride. D type stirrups need heeled shoes. So not even the high heels gets dissed here!
So those who complain about this not being a "fighting armour", well, that is not its function. This armour certainly does exist, and was used. But not for fighting.
the heels may prove ineffective in certain terrain, but with a bit of practice one can learn to move around in heels almost as effectively as in regular footwear. I've seen women shuffle in high heels, it's totally possible. Additionally they may double as weapons!
As for the exposed legs, this could also be used as an advantage, The potential weakness may draw the attention of her opponents to that particular weakspot in the armor, letting her take advantage of an opponent's likely-to-be-predictable attacks.
Aside from all that!
The drawing looks absolutely awesome!
Honestly, though. I do have this feeling that the only reason why you're bringing up the leg is because this knight is a woman and if she were to have been a man wearing even less armor, you'd probably just comment about how cool and badass he'd look. I've seen female warriors wearing practical armor that protects all of their vital organs receive more criticism than a shirtless male warrior. Am I being too harsh here? It's only based on what I've been seeing.
To answer the rest of your statements in no particular order:
1. Movement is important, but seriously anything more then a nick anywhere near your thighs will leave you unconscious or dead in minutes. Wear leg armor
2. Vision is less vital then not getting an arrow in your face, and as for communication, they made a thing for that called a "visor"
Don't talk to me again if you're just going to call troops of the past, today or a future a bunch of "cannon fodder conscripts." Shame on you.
1. My comments are purely regarding the above picture and the period of time this type of armor might have occurred in, I have made literally NO reference to modern soldiers or wars
2. As for your comment about soldiers from any period of history spending 99.99% of their time not fighting, this is false. Oooooh is it ever false. Read up on some of conflicts between Britain and France during the Dark and Middle ages. 13 - 1400's, if you were male, English and poor, there is little chance that you would have managed to not be drafted into any of the countless border and land disputes happening around that era. And this is if you WEREN'T a professional fighter.
3. This kind of thing is by no means restricted to but one area of Europe, it was happening all over the world
4. Before you start bitching at me, realize that I was in no way approving of, or complementing the use of lightly armored and poorly trained conscripts, I was making a statement that these kind of soldiers existed and were used by most nations in the world at one point or another. And they weren't good for much other then drowning the enemies in superior numbers of for catching arrows.
Regarding your attack upon my defense of the criticism of this design, I'll go along with your logic whilst defending my points *determined poser*
Valid point indeed sir. Regardless of skill boots will always outperform heels in terms of practicality. But depending on circumstances one may still learn to move effeciently enough in heels.
Yet another valid point. It is certainly a bit of a gamble to attempt to exploit exposed weaknesses as an advantage.
Aside from this I still find the armor practical looking in the way its pieces fit together and interlock according to anatomical functions. And also that it doesn't have a solid metal bust.
Atleast we can agree that it's awesome!
Really, the only flaw I see is the fact that she's wearing high-heels, that's the only thing I would criticize.