Open Toed Footwear

Triumpf

Why are so many of the battle gear footwear. open toed? If it was actual battle what do you think I would be chopping off first? Yup, without toes it would be a lot harder to maneuver, much less stand up. I don't know who thought of it, but I think it's stupid. I know it's a minor cosmetic thing but it bugs Me. What do you think?

PKMN12

there are A LOT of problems with the armors in this game. Half the heavy armor does not protect the throat at all, for example.

Xilidevil

I completely agree with you Pk, the throat should be protected! The toes.. I guess you could stand loosing? I mean as long as you got the foot you're mobile..

Glurin

You ever tried wearing boots with two inch long toenails?

LameoveR

OMG!

emeraldbay

While I'm of the mindset that Khajiit are able to retract their claws, there's a reason why you don't declaw the hind paws of your pets.
Like cats, I imagine Khajiit rely naturally upon their claws providing traction, extra balance, etc. during battle. Therefore, open-toes make sense.

Argonians as well seem to have long claws, or “talons,” perhaps, which are likely not retractable. Open-toed footwear would be the only way to go, if this is the case, aside from shaving the claws down until they fit, which would likely get painful very quickly.
Not to mention the fact that Argonians likely rely on their hind claws as well.

Further, during the times of the Romans and Greeks (which I know this isn't, but just hear me out), open-toed footwear were common to wear to war due to comfort and ease of mobility. They allow air to pass through to the feet, and make blisters a less common occurrence.

Bryndwr_Badmoon

I'd crack up if I saw a Khajiit get all feral in a fight like some kitties do. I have 5 Savannahs, and one of them, my big F-2 gets cobra-spitty and will roll onto her back to get ya real well with those back claws should you really incur her wrath. At her size, I tell folks to try to avoid that scenario.

I don't mind the open-toed look so much, but boots would be lovely if those aren't available. I just started playing this week, so sadly, I'm wearing what seem to be bandages...?

MercyKilling

Bryndwr_Badmoon wrote: »

I don't mind the open-toed look so much, but boots would be lovely if those aren't available. I just started playing this week, so sadly, I'm wearing what seem to be bandages...?

Don't worry, the armor becomes much more prudish as you level up, until eventually you have not even one square inch of skin showing for some of the styles.

emeraldbay

Bryndwr_Badmoon wrote: »

I'd crack up if I saw a Khajiit get all feral in a fight like some kitties do. I have 5 Savannahs, and one of them, my big F-2 gets cobra-spitty and will roll onto her back to get ya real well with those back claws should you really incur her wrath. At her size, I tell folks to try to avoid that scenario.

I don't mind the open-toed look so much, but boots would be lovely if those aren't available. I just started playing this week, so sadly, I'm wearing what seem to be bandages...?

There’s a satisfying selection of savory sabatons suited for spelunking, sir, I swear!

...Ahem. Yes, there are boots.

Bryndwr_Badmoon

I'd crack up if I saw a Khajiit get all feral in a fight like some kitties do. I have 5 Savannahs, and one of them, my big F-2 gets cobra-spitty and will roll onto her back to get ya real well with those back claws should you really incur her wrath. At her size, I tell folks to try to avoid that scenario.

MercyKilling wrote: »

Bryndwr_Badmoon wrote: »

I don't mind the open-toed look so much, but boots would be lovely if those aren't available. I just started playing this week, so sadly, I'm wearing what seem to be bandages...?

Don't worry, the armor becomes much more prudish as you level up, until eventually you have not even one square inch of skin showing for some of the styles.

Oh no!! See, I'm not lookin' to be a hootchie momma bootie flinger or anything, but a little belly showing nice feminine armor would be nice!

Egonieser

LameoveR wrote: »

OMG!

This ^

Suck it up and move on people.

Armor will not protect you if you were a *** warrior.

A good warrior can fight naked with just the essential tools when used properly.

Romans were half naked, greeks were half naked - and those were the best warriors and armies in known history. Too much armour hinders mobility and they knew that. They couldn't have done half their gamechanging manoeuvres if they had worn the armour like in ESO.

Morduil

Egonieser wrote: »

Romans were half naked, greeks were half naked - and those were the best warriors and armies in known history. Too much armour hinders mobility and they knew that. They couldn't have done half their gamechanging manoeuvres if they had worn the armour like in ESO.

Not to get too picky, but that's not totally true.

On the battlefield, both Roman and Greek infantries were relatively slow in manoeuvring, sacrificing battlefield mobility for cohesion of formation. Alexander the Great was famed for battlefield mobility, but that was due to his hetairoi cavalry - the Macedonian infantry phalanx was deeply umanoeuvrable, used as the anvil to the cavalry hammer.

The main weakness of the Roman army was its underappreciation of cavalry, and this on occasion had catastrophic consequences when their (in battle) relatively slow moving infantry were faced by a more cavalry-based, fast manoeuvring enemy - for example at Carrhae. Later in the Empire cavalry became a more important part of the typical Imperial army composition (the Republic and Principate had it, often in large numbers - as in the Gallic Wars - but it was mostly peripheral to the infantry in numbers and military tactics) but they were still quite lightly armoured, and this was not necessarily an advantage, as at Adrianople where they were no match for the more heavily armoured Gothic cavalry.

The primary reasons for the use of relatively light armour in the ancient world was twofold: first) metal armour was expensive, and second) the Mediterranean and Mesopotamian climates are extremely hot.

Xilidevil

Bryndwr_Badmoon wrote: »

I'd crack up if I saw a Khajiit get all feral in a fight like some kitties do. I have 5 Savannahs, and one of them, my big F-2 gets cobra-spitty and will roll onto her back to get ya real well with those back claws should you really incur her wrath. At her size, I tell folks to try to avoid that scenario.

MercyKilling wrote: »

Bryndwr_Badmoon wrote: »

I don't mind the open-toed look so much, but boots would be lovely if those aren't available. I just started playing this week, so sadly, I'm wearing what seem to be bandages...?

Don't worry, the armor becomes much more prudish as you level up, until eventually you have not even one square inch of skin showing for some of the styles.

Oh no!! See, I'm not lookin' to be a hootchie momma bootie flinger or anything, but a little belly showing nice feminine armor would be nice!

Well.. I know Bosmer light armor (Bosmer being Wood Elf if you didn't know) has a top that shows quite a good amount of belly for females.

Bryndwr_Badmoon

Xilidevil wrote: »

Well.. I know Bosmer light armor (Bosmer being Wood Elf if you didn't know) has a top that shows quite a good amount of belly for females.

@Xilidevil Thanks so much!

Gidorick

I've chosen different, less efficient footware because of the open-toed shoes. I think they offer plenty of both.

Moonscythe

Xilidevil wrote: »

Bryndwr_Badmoon wrote: »

I'd crack up if I saw a Khajiit get all feral in a fight like some kitties do. I have 5 Savannahs, and one of them, my big F-2 gets cobra-spitty and will roll onto her back to get ya real well with those back claws should you really incur her wrath. At her size, I tell folks to try to avoid that scenario.

MercyKilling wrote: »

Bryndwr_Badmoon wrote: »

I don't mind the open-toed look so much, but boots would be lovely if those aren't available. I just started playing this week, so sadly, I'm wearing what seem to be bandages...?

Don't worry, the armor becomes much more prudish as you level up, until eventually you have not even one square inch of skin showing for some of the styles.

Oh no!! See, I'm not lookin' to be a hootchie momma bootie flinger or anything, but a little belly showing nice feminine armor would be nice!

Well.. I know Bosmer light armor (Bosmer being Wood Elf if you didn't know) has a top that shows quite a good amount of belly for females.

Bosmer light has long sleeves but Bosmer medium is just an x of leather in the front. Don't talk to me about losing my toes when some cat is ripping out my totally unprotected belly. What is with calling armor which does it's job by covering tender, tearable flesh with leather prudish? I'd rather be protected than titillate.

Bryndwr_Badmoon

@Moonscythe

Bosmer light has long sleeves but Bosmer medium is just an x of leather in the front. Don't talk to me about losing my toes when some cat is ripping out my totally unprotected belly. What is with calling armor which does it's job by covering tender, tearable flesh with leather prudish? I'd rather be protected than titillate.

I'm less than week in and am hoping to be a healer as my main character, so that means standing behind someone, right?



hehehe

RiCat

Perhaps nail and toe nail polish in colors can be added? Nothing like a little style to dress things up

UrQuan

Morduil wrote: »

Egonieser wrote: »

Romans were half naked, greeks were half naked - and those were the best warriors and armies in known history. Too much armour hinders mobility and they knew that. They couldn't have done half their gamechanging manoeuvres if they had worn the armour like in ESO.

Not to get too picky, but that's not totally true.

On the battlefield, both Roman and Greek infantries were relatively slow in manoeuvring, sacrificing battlefield mobility for cohesion of formation. Alexander the Great was famed for battlefield mobility, but that was due to his hetairoi cavalry - the Macedonian infantry phalanx was deeply umanoeuvrable, used as the anvil to the cavalry hammer.

The main weakness of the Roman army was its underappreciation of cavalry, and this on occasion had catastrophic consequences when their (in battle) relatively slow moving infantry were faced by a more cavalry-based, fast manoeuvring enemy - for example at Carrhae. Later in the Empire cavalry became a more important part of the typical Imperial army composition (the Republic and Principate had it, often in large numbers - as in the Gallic Wars - but it was mostly peripheral to the infantry in numbers and military tactics) but they were still quite lightly armoured, and this was not necessarily an advantage, as at Adrianople where they were no match for the more heavily armoured Gothic cavalry.

The primary reasons for the use of relatively light armour in the ancient world was twofold: first) metal armour was expensive, and second) the Mediterranean and Mesopotamian climates are extremely hot.

This was one of my fields of study back in University, and you've got it pretty much exactly.

I would also add that part of Alexander's fame for battlefield mobility also comes from his strategic mobility. His forces were able to march farther in a day than their enemies, and show up on the battlefield before the opposing forces were prepared. This alone often allowed them to out-maneuver them in battle (especially as his forces were famed for marching for hours and almost immediately entering battle with little to no rest).

It's also worth noting that the Macedonian phalanx, as unmaneuverable as it was, was still light and maneuverable compared to the earlier phalanxes seen during the Peloponnesian War, or the Greco-Persian Wars. Maneuvering with those phalanxes of heavy hoplites generally consisted of going in a straight line forward, and then (once contact had been made with the enemy) slowly shifting to the left, regardless of the wishes of the commander.

MercyKilling

UrQuan wrote: »

Morduil wrote: »

Egonieser wrote: »

Romans were half naked, greeks were half naked - and those were the best warriors and armies in known history. Too much armour hinders mobility and they knew that. They couldn't have done half their gamechanging manoeuvres if they had worn the armour like in ESO.

Not to get too picky, but that's not totally true.

On the battlefield, both Roman and Greek infantries were relatively slow in manoeuvring, sacrificing battlefield mobility for cohesion of formation. Alexander the Great was famed for battlefield mobility, but that was due to his hetairoi cavalry - the Macedonian infantry phalanx was deeply umanoeuvrable, used as the anvil to the cavalry hammer.

The main weakness of the Roman army was its underappreciation of cavalry, and this on occasion had catastrophic consequences when their (in battle) relatively slow moving infantry were faced by a more cavalry-based, fast manoeuvring enemy - for example at Carrhae. Later in the Empire cavalry became a more important part of the typical Imperial army composition (the Republic and Principate had it, often in large numbers - as in the Gallic Wars - but it was mostly peripheral to the infantry in numbers and military tactics) but they were still quite lightly armoured, and this was not necessarily an advantage, as at Adrianople where they were no match for the more heavily armoured Gothic cavalry.

The primary reasons for the use of relatively light armour in the ancient world was twofold: first) metal armour was expensive, and second) the Mediterranean and Mesopotamian climates are extremely hot.

This was one of my fields of study back in University, and you've got it pretty much exactly.

I would also add that part of Alexander's fame for battlefield mobility also comes from his strategic mobility. His forces were able to march farther in a day than their enemies, and show up on the battlefield before the opposing forces were prepared. This alone often allowed them to out-maneuver them in battle (especially as his forces were famed for marching for hours and almost immediately entering battle with little to no rest).

It's also worth noting that the Macedonian phalanx, as unmaneuverable as it was, was still light and maneuverable compared to the earlier phalanxes seen during the Peloponnesian War, or the Greco-Persian Wars. Maneuvering with those phalanxes of heavy hoplites generally consisted of going in a straight line forward, and then (once contact had been made with the enemy) slowly shifting to the left, regardless of the wishes of the commander.

I love it when people make posts like this as if they have empirical proof that it's fact, when the cold hard truth of the matter is....we really just don't know. We cannot /know/, for we were not /there/. At best, we guess.
Remember, history is written by the victor, and back then by very flowery prose that was likely greatly exaggerated. Add in the fact that when translating to another language, nuances are invariably lost and you end up with at BEST a blurred picture of what actually happened.

Note that I am not attacking you or your knowledge, which I firmly believe was hard work and much study for you...I am questioning the sources of knowledge. Until time travel is no longer science fiction..we truly cannot know for certain anything that happened in the past. (Well, before more efficient record keeping was discovered/utilized. And I still question some recent history. )

UrQuan

MercyKilling wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

Morduil wrote: »

Egonieser wrote: »

Romans were half naked, greeks were half naked - and those were the best warriors and armies in known history. Too much armour hinders mobility and they knew that. They couldn't have done half their gamechanging manoeuvres if they had worn the armour like in ESO.

Not to get too picky, but that's not totally true.

On the battlefield, both Roman and Greek infantries were relatively slow in manoeuvring, sacrificing battlefield mobility for cohesion of formation. Alexander the Great was famed for battlefield mobility, but that was due to his hetairoi cavalry - the Macedonian infantry phalanx was deeply umanoeuvrable, used as the anvil to the cavalry hammer.

The main weakness of the Roman army was its underappreciation of cavalry, and this on occasion had catastrophic consequences when their (in battle) relatively slow moving infantry were faced by a more cavalry-based, fast manoeuvring enemy - for example at Carrhae. Later in the Empire cavalry became a more important part of the typical Imperial army composition (the Republic and Principate had it, often in large numbers - as in the Gallic Wars - but it was mostly peripheral to the infantry in numbers and military tactics) but they were still quite lightly armoured, and this was not necessarily an advantage, as at Adrianople where they were no match for the more heavily armoured Gothic cavalry.

The primary reasons for the use of relatively light armour in the ancient world was twofold: first) metal armour was expensive, and second) the Mediterranean and Mesopotamian climates are extremely hot.

This was one of my fields of study back in University, and you've got it pretty much exactly.

I would also add that part of Alexander's fame for battlefield mobility also comes from his strategic mobility. His forces were able to march farther in a day than their enemies, and show up on the battlefield before the opposing forces were prepared. This alone often allowed them to out-maneuver them in battle (especially as his forces were famed for marching for hours and almost immediately entering battle with little to no rest).

It's also worth noting that the Macedonian phalanx, as unmaneuverable as it was, was still light and maneuverable compared to the earlier phalanxes seen during the Peloponnesian War, or the Greco-Persian Wars. Maneuvering with those phalanxes of heavy hoplites generally consisted of going in a straight line forward, and then (once contact had been made with the enemy) slowly shifting to the left, regardless of the wishes of the commander.

I love it when people make posts like this as if they have empirical proof that it's fact, when the cold hard truth of the matter is....we really just don't know. We cannot /know/, for we were not /there/. At best, we guess.
Remember, history is written by the victor, and back then by very flowery prose that was likely greatly exaggerated. Add in the fact that when translating to another language, nuances are invariably lost and you end up with at BEST a blurred picture of what actually happened.

Note that I am not attacking you or your knowledge, which I firmly believe was hard work and much study for you...I am questioning the sources of knowledge. Until time travel is no longer science fiction..we truly cannot know for certain anything that happened in the past. (Well, before more efficient record keeping was discovered/utilized. And I still question some recent history. )

Given that we have detailed accounts of many of the battles and campaigns of those eras from both sides, and that we have enough written and physical evidence to know exactly what the equipment was that the different forces used... Yup, we can actually be very very confident of the above. Much more so than we can about many other, more recent, eras of history.

Iselin

Well, it beats high heels.

UrQuan

Iselin wrote: »

Well, it beats high heels.

Which were actually introduced for cavalry... It made them more steady in their stirrups in battle. Not stilettos, naturally, but simply a very pronounced heel that was the precursor to the high heels we've seen women wear for the last century (give or take).

Iselin

UrQuan wrote: »

Iselin wrote: »

Well, it beats high heels.

Which were actually introduced for cavalry... It made them more steady in their stirrups in battle. Not stilettos, naturally, but simply a very pronounced heel that was the precursor to the high heels we've seen women wear for the last century (give or take).

Yeah... I was referring to the Asian MMO art style, not manly man heels

dafox187

Triumpf wrote: »

Why are so many of the battle gear footwear. open toed? If it was actual battle what do you think I would be chopping off first? Yup, without toes it would be a lot harder to maneuver, much less stand up. I don't know who thought of it, but I think it's stupid. I know it's a minor cosmetic thing but it bugs Me. What do you think?

has many amazing ideas from fourm to talk about on eso live talks about sandles

rynth

Morduil wrote: »

Egonieser wrote: »

Romans were half naked, greeks were half naked - and those were the best warriors and armies in known history. Too much armour hinders mobility and they knew that. They couldn't have done half their gamechanging manoeuvres if they had worn the armour like in ESO.

Not to get too picky, but that's not totally true.

On the battlefield, both Roman and Greek infantries were relatively slow in manoeuvring, sacrificing battlefield mobility for cohesion of formation. Alexander the Great was famed for battlefield mobility, but that was due to his hetairoi cavalry - the Macedonian infantry phalanx was deeply umanoeuvrable, used as the anvil to the cavalry hammer.

The main weakness of the Roman army was its underappreciation of cavalry, and this on occasion had catastrophic consequences when their (in battle) relatively slow moving infantry were faced by a more cavalry-based, fast manoeuvring enemy - for example at Carrhae. Later in the Empire cavalry became a more important part of the typical Imperial army composition (the Republic and Principate had it, often in large numbers - as in the Gallic Wars - but it was mostly peripheral to the infantry in numbers and military tactics) but they were still quite lightly armoured, and this was not necessarily an advantage, as at Adrianople where they were no match for the more heavily armoured Gothic cavalry.

The primary reasons for the use of relatively light armour in the ancient world was twofold: first) metal armour was expensive, and second) the Mediterranean and Mesopotamian climates are extremely hot.

to get picky the Romans were not slow on the battlefield, actually they were quite good at maneuverability it was one of their greatest assets. Now if you are talking in the days before Scipio Africanus then there is a bit of truth that they were not flexible. But, after reforms Romans changed their tactics and became very, very maneuverable on the battlefield its one of the reasons why they won so many battles when out numbered. As for cavalry the Romans never adopted them as a main stay of the army, most cavalry were conscripts of barbarians. But by far and large the whole Roman "army" was centered upon its infantry cohorts. Also key reason cavalry wasn't the most reliable in battle was because there was no stirrup back then.

Moonscythe

UrQuan wrote: »

Iselin wrote: »

Well, it beats high heels.

Which were actually introduced for cavalry... It made them more steady in their stirrups in battle. Not stilettos, naturally, but simply a very pronounced heel that was the precursor to the high heels we've seen women wear for the last century (give or take).

And lets not forget cowboy boots which have heels for very similar reasons.

LameoveR

Age of knights ends when crossbows's bolts start to pierce their "OMG HEAVY METAL ARMOR FULLMETAL JACKET!!!!"
And i'm not sure that full metal armor can save you of... FIRE FROST OR LIGHTING damage

Morduil

[/quote]

to get picky the Romans were not slow on the battlefield, actually they were quite good at maneuverability it was one of their greatest assets. Now if you are talking in the days before Scipio Africanus then there is a bit of truth that they were not flexible. But, after reforms Romans changed their tactics and became very, very maneuverable on the battlefield its one of the reasons why they won so many battles when out numbered. As for cavalry the Romans never adopted them as a main stay of the army, most cavalry were conscripts of barbarians. But by far and large the whole Roman "army" was centered upon its infantry cohorts. Also key reason cavalry wasn't the most reliable in battle was because there was no stirrup back then.
[/quote]

They weren't completely unmanoeuvrable, but that manoeuvrability was one of their greatest assets is just not true - again, consider Carrhae, or Abrittus, or Edessa. Their greatest assets were discipline and cohesion, created by training and the internal unit and command structure. Once deployed, the main formation was largely committed. Flexibility was much more provided by the use of reserves, not the maneouvrability of the main force. Furthermore, if caught unprepared, disaster could ensue, the Teutoberg Forest being the most disastrous example.

Re. cavalry, that is all true, and some of the reasons why the situation was as I described (apart from the idea that their lacking stirrups made them unreliable - consider both the Parthians and the Huns, as well as Alexander's hetairoi, the invention of stirrups made heavy cavalry much more devastating, but not more reliable; as a possible advantage it is, however, here irrelevant as the Romans' foes didn't have them either), but I was focusing on the infantry as more germane to this game.