Jump to content

Primary: Sky Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Secondary: Sky Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Pattern: Blank Waves Squares Notes Sharp Wood Rockface Leather Honey Vertical Triangles
* * * * * (4.69 - 197votes)

Exterminator


Alt Names: alt 駆除人alt 방역업자(구제인)alt Kujonin
Author: Hana Kuroko
Artist: Asakawa Keiji
Genres: Action ActionAdventure AdventureComedy ComedyDrama DramaEcchi EcchiFantasy FantasyHarem HaremRomance RomanceSeinen SeinenSlice of Life Slice of LifeSmut Smut
Type: Manga (Japanese)
Status: Ongoing
Description: An exterminator dies and finds himself in a fantasy world, without any skill with the sword or wand he carries on doing what he knows best.

Korean scans : http://marumaru.in/b/manga/226118
Go to Exterminator Forums! | Scroll Down to Comments


Latest Forum Posts

Topic Started By Stats Last Post Info
No topics has been found for this comic.

Chapters

Title Group Contributor Date
Ch.4 Read Online
Champion Scans SirChampion 3 weeks ago
x

Register now for full access! You'll be able to follow (bookmark) your favorites, get updates on new releases, and more! It's completely free and only takes a minute.



235 Comments

The Great Wall of Batoto


Jesus Christ, use some spoiler tags.
Theres more words on this comment section than I've read in my textbook!?!?

Outside of that, this guy is the ultimate XP farmer I believe.

I know I will probably be "burned at the stake" here, but I find the most hilarious when people start trying to explain logic about a fantasy setting in a manga or book.

 

I mean, wtf, it's all fictional, why do it need any logic? I don't give a f if they where on space jumping from a star to another while going through a sun as long as the story is interesting.

 

And nice work on creating the Great Wall of Text.

Sorry if my English is not perfect but I will try as best as I can.

{1} & {3} 

Spoiler

Spoiler

 

{2}

Spoiler

 

Spoiler

 

 

The only real difference between "heavy" and "light" armour is (simplified): heavy is immune to slashing, weak against blunt and expensive, while light is resistant to slashing (as good as heavy, just with durability loss), decent with blunt and much cheaper. Piercing will always work (or not work) for both, depending on momentum, distance, angle and how pointy it is.

Spoiler

I wonder if spreading poisoned rat carcasses is going to have an effect on the ecosystem. Is he going to kill off all the dragons through bioaccumulation?

 

Oh that's exactly what happens.

Yeah, he is an exterminator....a chick exterminator.

...

 

Full body plate-armour weights as little as nothing. The weight is spread out all around the body, unlike a modern soldier. The mobility/agility loss is also negligible. When you see a real life fully armoured person moving awkwardly, it's because the armour isn't a proper fit, thus hindering his movements and not the armour hinders movement by nature. You will tire out (slightly) quicker, because weight is weight, but you will only see this difference if you're competing with an unarmoured opponent in sprinting or a marathon or something.

 

The only real difference between "heavy" and "light" armour is (simplified): heavy is immune to slashing, weak against blunt and expensive, while light is resistant to slashing (as good as heavy, just with durability loss), decent with blunt and much cheaper. Piercing will always work (or not work) for both, depending on momentum, distance, angle and how pointy it is.

 

Hand-to-hand combat is a major focus in armoured fighting, in the form of wrestling (Judo, jujutsu, etc.), because the only weapon that can do anything is the poleaxe or warhammer or something (primary weapon), and once that is gone, your only chance is to drop the guy and poke at his armpits. This also shows you how "agile" you can be while fully armoured.

 

Rather than a modern soldier with a backpack, it's closer and better to compare it with our full body riot gear, which is essentially "light" armour. Afterall, the "heavy" plate-armour is fantasy.

 

Just saying.

Spoiler

Sorry if my English is not perfect but I will try as best as I can.

{1} & {3} 

Spoiler

{2}
Spoiler

Citations please. Although I'm fairly certain you used this source, given the last line practically matches it word for word—and that source is not exactly a credible authority. Everything I've read showed that arrows from typical war bows (not super-strong reproductions that only few can even use properly) generally weren't entirely effective against proper steel plate cuirass, especially at such long range. For example, this study. Of course, there were always exceptions that can be found in historical records of the time, but here's the thing: if it's a normal occurrence, nobody takes note of it, but if it's a rare occurrence, everybody remembers it. Modern soldiers might talk about that one time their trusty knife saved their life against some attacker who got too close, but do they talk about the myriad of times their rifle saved them from an attacker? No, because that's to be expected from a rifle, isn't it?

 

When you enter the realm of "magic" all bets are off and no statements can actually be made—that's why bringing up "magic" in this argument is self-defeating. The author can decide that steel is less effective simply on a whim, which as I said before is a completely contrived, not logical, reason. My argument is that, assuming the same enchantment is used, steel is better armor than cloth or leather alone. To use RPG-like numbers for comparison, if our enchantment is a "+10 defense", adding it to cloth or leather would make them "11 defense" while adding it to the steel plate armor would make it "20 defense". The magic adds the same amount of defensive potential to both of them, but the steel armor already has vastly greater defensive potential than the cloth or leather to begin with, so it's should still be much better armor.

Oh no, You caught me googling for information, what shame I feel~ Are you seriously gonna go down the rabbit hole of source validity on the internet?

 

Your entire argument is built on probability and history, and by your own admission magic makes this entire debate of heavy armor vs light armor pointless, and if magic is the deciding factor for a fight, then no, it's still not superior, all armor is just clothing at that point.

 

 

Does magic in this setting make the rules for gravity? Electromagnetism? Chemistry (obviously not, since the main character uses his knowledge of chemistry in his job)? Thermodynamics? Mechanics? Material sciences?
 
...No. All of those countless things are simply assumed to be "just what you'd expect from the real world," aren't they? They're ignored. If you look at it this way, you realize that this setting is INCREDIBLY similar to the real world, with a few differences that are glaringly obvious.
 
Also, I'm not arguing for my "favorite armor." I'm arguing against misinformation and poorly-informed opinion.

You seem to be missing the point of my argument, I'm not saying the "rules" don't exist, I'm saying they don't matter, and this discussion broke the boundary of this mangas universe many posts ago.
 
Arguing against misinformation in a manga comment section, yeah, you're a real guardian of truth lol

I don't care about any of the discussion going on right now right here...

 

... I just can't stop laughing at that guys name "Balzack". Like seriously, at least translate it slightly differently, so it doesn't sound like something that doesn't fit in a fantasy manga.

Actually, "Balzac" is the name of a famous 19th century author.

 

...Even in French, it still sounds like "ballsack".

I don't care about any of the discussion going on right now right here...

 

... I just can't stop laughing at that guys name "Balzack". Like seriously, at least translate it slightly differently, so it doesn't sound like something that doesn't fit in a fantasy manga.

Da Fuq?I was expecting lots of comments about THAT page taken right out of a doujin.

 

Instead,I find "The Logic of Armor Bikini".

Just doing my part to combat misinformation, citizen.

 

Also, people already discussed that page. You just missed it.

Da Fuq?I was expecting lots of comments about THAT page taken right out of a doujin.

 

Instead,I find "The Logic of Armor Bikini".

Magic makes most of the "rules" as you put it mute because anything is possible with it, if you call that brain dead, I don't know how to help ya.
 
This has gone beyond a proper debate and entered a pissing contest of "I like this armor better, so it's better"

Does magic in this setting make the rules for gravity? Electromagnetism? Chemistry (obviously not, since the main character uses his knowledge of chemistry in his job)? Thermodynamics? Mechanics? Material sciences?
 
...No. All of those countless things are simply assumed to be "just what you'd expect from the real world," aren't they? They're ignored. If you look at it this way, you realize that this setting is INCREDIBLY similar to the real world, with a few differences that are glaringly obvious.
 
Also, I'm not arguing for my "favorite armor." I'm arguing against misinformation and poorly-informed opinion.

There have been numerous studies on the topic of bows punching through plate-armor, and the conclusion most of them came to was a matter of draw weight, distance, and what type of arrow, If they were using the correct arrowhead (a Pile in most cases I'd hope) and the force that the bow could apply was around 100-150 Joules, they could penetrate plate armor at ranges of up to 200 meters, and kill, or seriously wound the wearer.

Citations please. Although I'm fairly certain you used this source, given the last line practically matches it word for word—and that source is not exactly a credible authority. Everything I've read showed that arrows from typical war bows (not super-strong reproductions that only few can even use properly) generally weren't entirely effective against proper steel plate cuirass, especially at such long range. For example, this study. Of course, there were always exceptions that can be found in historical records of the time, but here's the thing: if it's a normal occurrence, nobody takes note of it, but if it's a rare occurrence, everybody remembers it. Modern soldiers might talk about that one time their trusty knife saved their life against some attacker who got too close, but do they talk about the myriad of times their rifle saved them from an attacker? No, because that's to be expected from a rifle, isn't it?

 

Except when you enter the realm of which enchanted armor is superior it instead becomes a matter of whose enchantment is superior and not the base material.

When you enter the realm of "magic" all bets are off and no statements can actually be made—that's why bringing up "magic" in this argument is self-defeating. The author can decide that steel is less effective simply on a whim, which as I said before is a completely contrived, not logical, reason. My argument is that, assuming the same enchantment is used, steel is better armor than cloth or leather alone. To use RPG-like numbers for comparison, if our enchantment is a "+10 defense", adding it to cloth or leather would make them "11 defense" while adding it to the steel plate armor would make it "20 defense". The magic adds the same amount of defensive potential to both of them, but the steel armor already has vastly greater defensive potential than the cloth or leather to begin with, so it's should still be much better armor.

Wrong. Good, proper armor protected you a lot.

Arrows broke against them.

Lances defeated by them.

Swords ineffectual to them.

A knight in full plate armor is extremely well-defended against the threats of the time. Firearms like the 15th century arquebus were basically the only weapon that would routinely and reliably defeat a fully armored knight—because firearms are ridiculously effective weapons.

 

These "really thin" armors were made from hardened steel and were accompanied by chain mail and a gambeson (padded quilted jacket) underneath, and weighed between 30 to 60 pounds. By comparison, modern soldiers often carry 100+ pounds into battle. They were not very clunky. They offered a wide range of motion and those who were trained to wear them in combat could do just about anything in them comfortably, including sprinting, mounting a horse, scaling ladders and walls, even acrobatics like cartwheels and somersaults. Warriors in full armor were not slow and clumsy either. You need proof? Here you go, three short videos on the topic.

 

Maybe you should do some actual research before you start spouting uneducated opinions next time, eh?

 

 

So what if this is fantasy world? That's such a lame, brain-dead excuse. Even if it's fantasy, it's still mostly based on the real world. The vast majority of the rules are the same as they are in the real world—most things behave the way you would expect them to behave in the real world, which is why you don't notice them at all, and the things that behave differently from how you would expect are noticeable, because they are the exception, not the rule. To my knowledge, there was never any explicit mention of such exceptions when it comes to armor in this fantasy world, so unless it is specifically mentioned later, we can logically expect this world to be similar to the real world in regards to armor—more armor is better than little to no armor, steel armor is better than cloth and leather armor, etc.

Magic makes most of the "rules" as you put it mute because anything is possible with it, if you call that brain dead, I don't know how to help ya.

 

This has gone beyond a proper debate and entered a pissing contest of "I like this armor better, so it's better"

Just to state a fact.

That armor wasn't protecting them alot.

 

Arrows shot trough.

Lances pierced trough.

And even swords could penetrate when stabbing with force.

 

It just gave protection from blunt attacks and sideways slashes.

Or splinters and small rocks.

 

I think you never have seen one of these armors in real life.

They're really thin and enforced with leather inside. And still clunky and heavy as shit.

 

Knights didn't walk around in them ... much xD.

 

But back to the topic.

Yes, fantasy logic doesnt apply to real life logic.

 

And for good measures.

:3 we sadly cant see it working in modern times anymore.

 

Wrong. Good, proper armor protected you a lot.

Arrows broke against them.

Lances defeated by them.

Swords ineffectual to them.

A knight in full plate armor is extremely well-defended against the threats of the time. Firearms like the 15th century arquebus were basically the only weapon that would routinely and reliably defeat a fully armored knight—because firearms are ridiculously effective weapons.

 

These "really thin" armors were made from hardened steel and were accompanied by chain mail and a gambeson (padded quilted jacket) underneath, and weighed between 30 to 60 pounds. By comparison, modern soldiers often carry 100+ pounds into battle. They were not very clunky. They offered a wide range of motion and those who were trained to wear them in combat could do just about anything in them comfortably, including sprinting, mounting a horse, scaling ladders and walls, even acrobatics like cartwheels and somersaults. Warriors in full armor were not slow and clumsy either. You need proof? Here you go, three short videos on the topic.

 

Maybe you should do some actual research before you start spouting uneducated opinions next time, eh?

 

This is ridiculous, why do people always use our non-magical world as an argument against one that is, science has no place in a world where we've made physics our bitch.

 

So what if this is fantasy world? That's such a lame, brain-dead excuse. Even if it's fantasy, it's still mostly based on the real world. The vast majority of the rules are the same as they are in the real world—most things behave the way you would expect them to behave in the real world, which is why you don't notice them at all, and the things that behave differently from how you would expect are noticeable, because they are the exception, not the rule. To my knowledge, there was never any explicit mention of such exceptions when it comes to armor in this fantasy world, so unless it is specifically mentioned later, we can logically expect this world to be similar to the real world in regards to armor—more armor is better than little to no armor, steel armor is better than cloth and leather armor, etc.

You are correct about skill and experience being an extremely important deciding factor in combat. But you are wrong as well. In a fight between a well-armored opponent versus an unarmored opponent, both armed equally, the difference in skill and experience has to be significant in order for the unarmored opponent to have an advantage. Just like how having a weapon is an immediate force multiplier in combat, armor gives an immediate, obvious advantage over those without armor.
 
If we talk about two opponents with equivalent weapons, strength, stamina, skill and experience, the one with better protection is more likely to win at the end. If we speak as if both have equivalent weapons, strength, stamina, skill and experience, the fight will likely be drawn out, so the person with less protection is statistically more likely to acquire injuries over the course of the battle. Injuries mean pain, stress and blood loss, which will cause them to lose steam as the fight goes on, slowing them down and dulling their reflexes, resulting in them being more likely to acquire even more injuries. Meanwhile, the person with armor is far less likely to be injured for obvious reasons. Even with special techniques, an unarmored warrior is at a disadvantage when faced with an armored opponent. In this video, they talk about anti-armor longsword technique, and show them in use against a fully armored opponent; during the video, the unarmored fighter admits that while he felt quicker and more agile, he felt like the difference in speed and agility was so slight as to be negligible, because his opponent was still quick and agile enough to keep up with him. Additionally, while the unarmored person did win (at least in the selected footage we are shown), several key factors about this demonstration must be taken into account—most important of which are that this is a demonstration not a death match, and that only one of the participants has any kind of protective gear on. This means that the guy in armor is actually at a disadvantage, since this is a demonstration so he needs to "pull his punches" to avoid grievously injuring or killing his unprotected opponent, while the unarmored guy can swing away with practically full force without having to worry much about grievously injuring or killing his armored opponent (because the armor is just that effective). So obviously, this demonstration cannot be considered representative of real battle conditions, where both participants would be acting with full intent to seriously harm and/or kill their opponent.
 
You also have the wrong idea about armor. It's not terribly heavy and hard to move in like people tend to think—a full suit of 15th century plate armor weighed on the order of 33 to 55 pounds—assuming we're talking about a 165 pound man, that's only 20% to 33% of his body weight, compared to the 60+% body weight 100+ pound gear loads that modern infantrymen are often forced to carry.
 

Unlikely. There does probably exist a few known cases of warbows shooting through armor breastplates... but most likely that would only happen to cheap wrought iron types that would be available to relatively poor footmen. The professionally-made suits of armor that come to mind when someone says "plate armor" are a completely different breed. Those are hardened steel with chain mail and gambeson underneath. Considering that just moderately thick gambeson offers the wearer significant protection from sword and axe slashes, thrown javelins/darts (not the playing kind), warbow arrows, and crossbow bolts, combined with riveted mail which is essentially cut-proof and is really difficult to deeply penetrate, and proper plate armor, which is absolutely cut-proof in battle and extremely difficult to penetrate (even with arrows), on top of all that, and one can easily see how a knight would be quite the daunting, seemingly invulnerable opponent for any footman to come face-to-face against. So, unless there exist some kind of special cloth or leather in the fantasy world that is inexplicably better in every way as armor over steel, then it stands to reason that enchanted steel armor should beat the ever-loving shit out of enchanted cloth or leather armor. There is no logical reason why the durability-enhancing magic could not be be used on steel armor (besides the author deciding it doesn't work, because they didn't want that magic to work on steel armor... never mind, that's an entirely contrived reason, not a logical reason), and steel is already vastly stronger and tougher than cloth or leather, so it would still make far better armor. And if magic is part of the equation, why can't there be magic that makes the steel armor lighter as well? The inclusion of "magic" basically removes every possible advantage cloth or leather armor could have over steel armor. Your argument defeats your own argument.

There have been numerous studies on the topic of bows punching through plate-armor, and the conclusion most of them came to was a matter of draw weight, distance, and what type of arrow, If they were using the correct arrowhead (a Pile in most cases I'd hope) and the force that the bow could apply was around 100-150 Joules, they could penetrate plate armor at ranges of up to 200 meters, and kill, or seriously wound the wearer.

 

Except when you enter the realm of which enchanted armor is superior it instead becomes a matter of whose enchantment is superior and not the base material.

Are you talking about 1v1 situation?...

From your post it seem to be the case, then I believe that is not true. The most important thing is about skill and experience.

In case if we talk about same experience the 1 with less "extra" weight should win at the end. If we speak as both have same combat skill and stamina, the fight will likely to draw out, the person with more weight will lose more stamina as the fight go on and lose the race.

You are correct about skill and experience being an extremely important deciding factor in combat. But you are wrong as well. In a fight between a well-armored opponent versus an unarmored opponent, both armed equally, the difference in skill and experience has to be significant in order for the unarmored opponent to have an advantage. Just like how having a weapon is an immediate force multiplier in combat, armor gives an immediate, obvious advantage over those without armor.
 
If we talk about two opponents with equivalent weapons, strength, stamina, skill and experience, the one with better protection is more likely to win at the end. If we speak as if both have equivalent weapons, strength, stamina, skill and experience, the fight will likely be drawn out, so the person with less protection is statistically more likely to acquire injuries over the course of the battle. Injuries mean pain, stress and blood loss, which will cause them to lose steam as the fight goes on, slowing them down and dulling their reflexes, resulting in them being more likely to acquire even more injuries. Meanwhile, the person with armor is far less likely to be injured for obvious reasons. Even with special techniques, an unarmored warrior is at a disadvantage when faced with an armored opponent. In this video, they talk about anti-armor longsword technique, and show them in use against a fully armored opponent; during the video, the unarmored fighter admits that while he felt quicker and more agile, he felt like the difference in speed and agility was so slight as to be negligible, because his opponent was still quick and agile enough to keep up with him. Additionally, while the unarmored person did win (at least in the selected footage we are shown), several key factors about this demonstration must be taken into account—most important of which are that this is a demonstration not a death match, and that only one of the participants has any kind of protective gear on. This means that the guy in armor is actually at a disadvantage, since this is a demonstration so he needs to "pull his punches" to avoid grievously injuring or killing his unprotected opponent, while the unarmored guy can swing away with practically full force without having to worry much about grievously injuring or killing his armored opponent (because the armor is just that effective). So obviously, this demonstration cannot be considered representative of real battle conditions, where both participants would be acting with full intent to seriously harm and/or kill their opponent.
 
You also have the wrong idea about armor. It's not terribly heavy and hard to move in like people tend to think—a full suit of 15th century plate armor weighed on the order of 33 to 55 pounds—assuming we're talking about a 165 pound man, that's only 20% to 33% of his body weight, compared to the 60+% body weight 100+ pound gear loads that modern infantrymen are often forced to carry.
 

With the right bow, You can shoot straight through full-plate armor, and magic exists in most of these stories so enchanted leather or cloth armor is gonna be the intelligent decision either way.

Unlikely. There does probably exist a few known cases of warbows shooting through armor breastplates... but most likely that would only happen to cheap wrought iron types that would be available to relatively poor footmen. The professionally-made suits of armor that come to mind when someone says "plate armor" are a completely different breed. Those are hardened steel with chain mail and gambeson underneath. Considering that just moderately thick gambeson offers the wearer significant protection from sword and axe slashes, thrown javelins/darts (not the playing kind), warbow arrows, and crossbow bolts, combined with riveted mail which is essentially cut-proof and is really difficult to deeply penetrate, and proper plate armor, which is absolutely cut-proof in battle and extremely difficult to penetrate (even with arrows), on top of all that, and one can easily see how a knight would be quite the daunting, seemingly invulnerable opponent for any footman to come face-to-face against. So, unless there exist some kind of special cloth or leather in the fantasy world that is inexplicably better in every way as armor over steel, then it stands to reason that enchanted steel armor should beat the ever-loving shit out of enchanted cloth or leather armor. There is no logical reason why the durability-enhancing magic could not be be used on steel armor (besides the author deciding it doesn't work, because they didn't want that magic to work on steel armor... never mind, that's an entirely contrived reason, not a logical reason), and steel is already vastly stronger and tougher than cloth or leather, so it would still make far better armor. And if magic is part of the equation, why can't there be magic that makes the steel armor lighter as well? The inclusion of "magic" basically removes every possible advantage cloth or leather armor could have over steel armor. Your argument defeats your own argument.

Mate he countered your arguments in what he said and also your stating what he said to a degree.
Also armor is still being used in modern times. Examples: Tanks, flak vests, helmets, full on riot gear. They still are implemented in modern times but no one is saying that they are perfect or going to prevent 100% of the time.

This is ridiculous, why do people always use our non-magical world as an argument against one that is, science has no place in a world where we've made physics our bitch.

Just to state a fact.

That armor wasn't protecting them alot.

 

Arrows shot trough.

Lances pierced trough.

And even swords could penetrate when stabbing with force.

 

It just gave protection from blunt attacks and sideways slashes.

Or splinters and small rocks.

 

I think you never have seen one of these armors in real life.

They're really thin and enforced with leather inside. And still clunky and heavy as shit.

 

Knights didn't walk around in them ... much xD.

 

But back to the topic.

Yes, fantasy logic doesnt apply to real life logic.

 

And for good measures.

:3 we sadly cant see it working in modern times anymore.

Mate he countered your arguments in what he said and also your stating what he said to a degree.

Also armor is still being used in modern times. Examples: Tanks, flak vests, helmets, full on riot gear. They still are implemented in modern times but no one is saying that they are perfect or going to prevent 100% of the time.

...All of this is wrong.

 

Yes, if a piece of armor protects even one vital, it's technically useful. But your entire set of armor only protects one vital, it's not that useful—especially compared to a set of armor that protects multiple vitals.

 

You've clearly never researched at ancient sets of armor. The oldest set of western armor we have found is the Mycenaean Greek Dendra panoply, hailing from around 1400 BCE, the recovered pieces of which protect the heart, lungs, stomach, liver, kidneys, intestines, hips, groin, buttocks, upper thighs, spine, shoulders, neck, and skullcap. And that's just the parts that were recovered; it's likely that the armor featured greaves and a shield at least, since the depictions on the later Warrior Vase features soldiers clad in similar armor with greaves and shields. My point is, people have always known that more armor = more protection, so at no point in history was it accepted military doctrine for soldiers to wear armor that didn't offer protection to their vitals when armor was available—because that's a suicidally stupid idea.

 

You are also wrong about Roman Empire military equipment. Proper legionaries were most often equipped with "lorica segmentata," more rarely with "lorica hamata" or "lorica squamata," which offered good protection to pretty much the entire torso and midsection; leading Centurions often wore "lorica hamata" or a "plate" muscle cuirass. Legionaries were also equipped with a "galea," the iconic Roman helmet, greaves to cover their shins, and their iconic tall "scutum" shields. During later parts of the Roman Empire, Legionaries started being equipped with "manica," segmented arm guards. This is by no means "half-assed armor"—this was actually pretty comprehensive and offered quite a lot of protection. Not as much as "full plate armor," sure, but those wouldn't be invented for another 1000 years anyways. Additionally, the reason why "generals" (Centurions) survived wars was not because "half-assed armor was enough"—it was because Centurions were military leaders, not front-line combatants, so they may not even experience direct combat during a battle.

 

And so what if "this is a RPG-like world, you can temper your muscles to become as tough as any kind of armor"? The same goes for the inverse—this is an RPG-like world, so anyone can strengthen their muscles to become strong enough to chop through almost anything—including tempered muscles. Ten minus ten equals zero, dude. Your own argument defeats itself.

 

...Are you calling them idiots for wearing armor that protected their entire body? Dafuq?

 

The metal didn't have to be thick or heavy. It's iron or steel, after all. You honestly think you can cut through a hardened steel cuirass with a sword? Fuck no dude, the best you'll do is scratch the armor; the worst you'll do is ruin or break your sword. And full plate armor isn't that heavy—it's about 50 pounds of armor across your whole body, so it doesn't feel heavy like a 50 pound backpack would, and you can easily run around, jump, get up off the ground, or even do somersaults and cartwheels in a full suit of plate armor.

Here's a video about replicating the training regimen of famous knight Boucicaut as recorded in the 15th century. While Boucicaut's training was [supposedly] particularly intense, it does show the extent of motion, strength and endurance that is possible when wearing a suit of armor.

 

Additionally, there isn't much evidence for leather armor. At least not normal leather. It is commonly accepted that "cuir bouilli" or "boiled leather" may have been used as cheap armor or for decorative pieces... but boiled leather could not withstand much punishment from blades or arrows from warbows without being unreasonably thick; when it came to cheap armor, a "gambeson," a padded quilted linen jacket, was far superior and much more common (don't scoff—a proper gambeson could stop a cut from a sword, chop from an axe or even a direct hit from a warbow's arrow at close range—they worked, and that's why they were so common).

 

Also, shields aren't "ditchable". They're "expendable" but only so much as any of your equipment. A good shield is as valuable as armor in combat, if not more valuable. Shields are one of the major reasons I personally favor knights in the "knight versus samurai" argument. Seriously, Norman kite shields were an amazing defense.

 

You're also wrong about armor only being used to prevent instant death. No, armor is used to prevent injuries in general, with a preference for preventing damage to vital areas for obvious reasons. While you are correct that infection could kill regardless of the size and location of the wound, wounds in vital locations have a vastly higher chance of killing you regardless of infection. Additionally, wounds to your vital areas are also harder to heal and infections in those areas are much more likely to be debilitating or fatal.

 

Yes, bikini armor is completely an invention of fanservice. Real woman warriors wore the same kind of armor as men of the time, because that's the armor that worked the best. Bikini armor would have done nothing for them. Most of the men are unlikely to be virgins, they have likely experienced combat, and would be full of adrenaline at the time—as such, they're not entirely likely to even consciously take notice of "a woman in revealing clothes" over the threat of "an armed enemy approaching me." At best, he might hesitate out of surprise or some misplaced notions of chivalry, but unless she can kill him with the first attack (which is an unlikely occurrence even with skilled combatants) he's likely to snap out of it pretty quickly once it becomes clear that his life is in danger. Any man who was distracted by it would have been killed sooner or later anyways because they lacked the proper focus to survive in combat. Additionally, nudity for both sexes was generally more socially acceptable and common pre-Victorian times, so a "bikini armor" strategy would probably have been even less effective than you'd think. In short, proper armor has every advantage over "bikini armor" in combat.

Just to state a fact.

That armor wasn't protecting them alot.

 

Arrows shot trough.

Lances pierced trough.

And even swords could penetrate when stabbing with force.

 

It just gave protection from blunt attacks and sideways slashes.

Or splinters and small rocks.

 

I think you never have seen one of these armors in real life.

They're really thin and enforced with leather inside. And still clunky and heavy as shit.

 

Knights didn't walk around in them ... much xD.

 

But back to the topic.

Yes, fantasy logic doesnt apply to real life logic.

 

And for good measures.

:3 we sadly cant see it working in modern times anymore.

There's a difference between not wearing it and wearing something that does little to nothing

Though in her case, I guess it at least keeps her watermelons from going into orbit like a bra.

 

"and everyone will move on with their life cause it ain't that serious."
If you seriously believe that, you wouldn't have felt a need to post an equally long reply full of anger and swearing; showing it mattered enough for you to get triggered with your knickers in a bunch. To use your own argument/advice, you yourself could have just as easily said "This is an ecchi fantasy manga, so logical reasoning and real life examples from the past means little here when anything can happen in a world of magic" to paraphrase, and that would have been cool. But hey, who needs a mirror for self reflection anymore these days?

[/spoiler]

 

With that long-winded wall of text rebuttal, I think I need a break from commenting for a while...a bottle of gin.

Spoiler

With the right bow, You can shoot straight through full-plate armor, and magic exists in most of these stories so enchanted leather or cloth armor is gonna be the intelligent decision either way.

Warriors have fought with little to no armor and sometimes even nude. Example Irish soldiers in the old ages didn't even wear armor or clothes and just fought with body paint.

There's a difference between not wearing it and wearing something that does little to nothing


Search Comics