|
HEY GAL posted:hahahahaaaaaaaa Yeah, I kind of figured but I was sorta hoping you'd have some explanation beyond victim blaming. I dunno, divine intervention or whatever.
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 03:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 15:12 |
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Yeah, I kind of figured but I was sorta hoping you'd have some explanation beyond victim blaming. I dunno, divine intervention or whatever. Well, you see, the city has ways of shutting that down if it's a legitimate sack. e: did you see how Madgeburg was dressed?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 03:17
|
|
|
lollll speaking of, the female members of the military community (I'm not going to say "soldiers' wives" for obvious reasons) dressed almost as flamboyantly as the menin the 1500s, wearing feathers in their hats:  (Part of this is also that it allowed Urs Graf to draw lines that wiggle and spiral, which he loves doing--look at the grass on the picture of that Landsknecht seen from the back, and his garter) and carrying big dagger-sized belt knives and wearing stupendous quantities of fabric:  (actually, I think that might be a legit dagger this woman is carrying.) Do you see how she's hitched her skirts up to walk? what you do is you pull your skirt up on every side, fold it over, and belt it underneath the fold. When they undo that at the end of the day their massive skirts trail across the ground.  The apex of this sort of thing--and from here onward this post may be  --is Urs Graf's Fortuna. "Fortune" is a very popular theme in this period, and one standard representation is of a woman balanced on a globe. Here is Duerer:  Graf was obsessed with Duerer, and there's no doubt that his "Fortune" was in part a response to Duerer's. But instead of that detached, impersonal majesty, you get this:  If anyone wants to know the difference between "an artistic nude" and "a naked person," show them these. Duerer's Fortune is nude. Graf's Fortune is partly naked. She is dressed like a female member of the military community would have been at the time, although very richly, and the picture is ambivalent--there's a devil in her cup, but I think the face is also sympathetic. This could be based on someone he knows. And see her dagger? In pictures of Landsknechts, their weapons jut up and out like an erect cock, either next to the codpiece or substituting for it. The handle of her dagger is reversed, and it points straight to her pussy lips. Remember, both women and men are sexual agents in this culture. Graf knows what he's about. (The dagger is also stereotypically Swiss, as are the crosses cut into her sleeves. Fortune may be a whore...but she works for us. At least right now.) (alternate interpretation: so, the model for this dumped you, i see.) HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 04:17 on Jan 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 03:50
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:And see her dagger? In pictures of Landsknechts, their weapons jut up and out like an erect cock, either next to the codpiece or substituting for it. This is simply not true. Look at the very picture you posted on the previous page:  The hilts of both weapons are pointed down and in. Urs Graf clearly did not ascribe a standard positioning to swords or daggers given the variety of positions you see them in:    And I doubt he normally ascribed any symbolism to their positioning either. quote:The handle of her dagger is reversed, and it points straight to her pussy lips. What? Does she have the longest labia in Europe or something?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 05:17
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:What? Does she have the longest labia in Europe or something? edit: you cannot tell me that the pictures you posted are not about wangs
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 05:20
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:extend the line with your eye, i'm serious. personal weapons are symbolic of personal equipment Line of hilt shown in black, presumed line of labia shown in blue (it's hard to draw straight lines on a phone) Also: sometimes a sword is just a sword
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 05:31
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Graf was obsessed with Duerer, and there's no doubt that his "Fortune" was in part a response to Duerer's. Dude even modeled his monogram after Dürer's, didn't he 
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 05:50
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:Also: sometimes a sword is just a sword yeah, ok
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 05:52
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:Dude even modeled his monogram after Dürer's, didn't he i just noticed, when i looked back up to Rodrigo Diaz's post: the VG for Urs Graf on the Fortuna piece? The V is made out of a swiss dagger
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 05:53
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:so you're telling me that these people, who draw swords and daggers next to/lovingly nestled beside/pointing to their bearers' wang and or oval office, the people who invented the codpiece and made them bigger and bigger until dudes were finally carrying their purses in them to have a handy place for their pocket money, did not intend for one of the most obvious symbols for men to also be a symbol for wangs (and sometimes cunts. sexual agency in general.) Sorry Hey Gal, but that is a tang, not a wang.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 06:06
|
|
|
Hypha posted:Sorry Hey Gal, but that is a tang, not a wang. Women think everything is about sex - maybe hegel's subjects were right!!!!!
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 06:31
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 06:52
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:Women think everything is about sex - maybe hegel's subjects were right!!!!! I found the wang in the thread.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 06:55
|
|
|
Hypha posted:I found the wang in the thread. Meh, I won't double down on it or anything. It was just garbage-level trolling on my part. What were gender relations/sex like earlier/in other places? I've heard that in the 10th-14th centuries the south of France was fairly libertine, with young folks dating much like we do and not getting married into their thirties, and also possibly (very maybe) having a semi-legitimized form of male gay marriage, while the North was much more hardcore about the no sex til' marriage thing. And even after hearing that I have no idea how women were treated vs. men in either location.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 07:25
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:Meh, I won't double down on it or anything. It was just garbage-level trolling on my part.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 07:38
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:eh, no skin off my nose So what did these military women you post about do? Did they manage the households of their various men, engage in business activities, make stuff, repair stuff? If you'll excuse the heteronormativity, women like to be around men and vice versa but mercenary companies sound like the kinds of organizations that can't have idle hands just eating stuff. Did any of them leave behind written records or was literacy a dude's thing back then?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 08:03
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:So what did these military women you post about do? Did they manage the households of their various men, engage in business activities, make stuff, repair stuff? If you'll excuse the heteronormativity, women like to be around men and vice versa but mercenary companies sound like the kinds of organizations that can't have idle hands just eating stuff. Did any of them leave behind written records or was literacy a dude's thing back then? Think the way early modern civilian men and women worked together in the same period, but more mobile and more killy, and probably less married. (Edit: Oh, they also carry things. Paintings with military people in them show the men carrying almost nothing and the women with these huge packs on their backs.) And I'm not familiar with anything from the 1500s, but from the 1600s a woman named Maria Cordula Freiin von Pranckh (1634-1705), wife of a colonel, left what she called a Gedenckbuch for her female descendants about her life and family. It's got some interesting things in it: this is from a report I wrote on it a long-rear end time ago: quote:As a noble, a member of a military family, Maria Cordula is one link in many chains of lineage and patronage, which she faithfully records. As a Catholic, she is careful to tell us that her husbands (and children, when they die late enough) took Communion before they died, or died “in schoner Vernunft,” with their faculties intact so that they were able to pray and think about their end. (A sudden death, by contrast, has something unwholesome about it—not only could sudden deaths be caused by demonic influence or witchcraft, a person who dies suddenly has no chance to make amends through Confession or prayer.) As a family member, she records the place and exact time, when she knows it, of her relative’s births, as well as their astrological signs, and when they die she records the places of their deaths. Many of her children are buried next to their fathers. 
HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 08:38 on Jan 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 08:14
|
|
|
I'm just going to sit here and contemplate the phrase "when all his teeth erupted at once" for a little while.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 09:14
|
|
|
the JJ posted:I'm just going to sit here and contemplate the phrase "when all his teeth erupted at once" for a little while. I suspect what that really means is a well-intentioned nurse sliced his gums up to "let the teeth out," which was a thing they sometimes did in the period.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 13:42
|
|
|
It can happen with lingering Staphylococcus aureus infections afaik. People have it, at some point the immune system gives in and they lose multiple teeth or limbs within hours. Scary poo poo. Gangrene etc.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 13:47
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:It can happen with lingering Staphylococcus aureus infections afaik. People have it, at some point the immune system gives in and they lose multiple teeth or limbs within hours. Scary poo poo. Gangrene etc. It's talking about the teeth emerging from the gum, not falling out. As in, baby starts teething (crying, being a pain in the rear end). Somebody thinks they'll get the job over and done with, and cuts down the length of the gums, exposing the teeth, killing the baby in the process. Also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlnUoJUut90 Mr Enderby fucked around with this message at 14:10 on Jan 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 13:59
|
|
|
Well, well, saw this post on the cell, didn't read it completely and assumed it's about another thing that Hegel told me about.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 15:44
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:and i'm sticking with it Were the Landsknechts into that?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:so you're telling me that these people, who draw swords and daggers next to/lovingly nestled beside/pointing to their bearers' wang and or oval office, Single-handed swords and longswords go on the hip. They're always going to be "next to" the genitals, given how broad you've made your parameters. As for "lovingly nestled", in most of those cases the bearers are sitting with their swords, and you have to move it into your lap to sit comfortably and not trip anyone. Keep in mind, though, my point is not that Graf never used swords to symbolize sexual desire or agency or potency, it is that his use of swords to that end is not a constant. quote:the people who invented the codpiece and made them bigger and bigger until dudes were finally carrying their purses in them to have a handy place for their pocket money, did not intend for one of the most obvious symbols for men to also be a symbol for wangs (and sometimes cunts. sexual agency in general.) First, you are confusing the intention of the artist with the intention of the subject. Second, the positioning of the sword is an entirely separate decision from the size of a codpiece. Third, the prominence of the codpiece seems, in at least some of Graf's work, indicative of (sexual) immorality rather than sexual desirability. Yet, again, this is not a constant. Consider this image of a whore offering her services with no weapon in the picture whatsoever:  You have said multiple times this is not a subtle people, and this unsubtlety is on full display here, but knives, daggers, and swords are absent. Amazingly, she is also pointing to her actual vulva, not a foot-and-a-half above it. That alone is enough to prove my original point, but let's delve a little deeper. Looking to another example, the most elaborate codpiece Urs Graf shows belongs to a soldier being led away by a devil.  Note the devil's big droopy balls and flat rear end. The choices for the devil are particularly noteworthy because there is no argument that Graf was simply working from a life model. This was not a unique decision on Urs Graf's part. It seems most likely Graf made these aesthetic choices because he was operating from Classical beauty standards for men, which emphasize big butts and small cocks. Every example I've in this post shows this, but none more so than this reislaufer:  The massive thighs and curvy buttocks are the prize here, not the small wiener. Though perhaps not unique to Graf, it certainly differentiates him from his most notable contemporaries. Compare for example the pathetic booty on this landsknecht from Durer:  Hans Burgkmair, meanwhile, in his Triumph of the Emperor Maximilian I, clearly emphasizes the codpieces (including two with slashing):  Also note that while some of Burgkmair's butts ought to have JUICY written across them, others are less impressive, as with the halberdier on the far left above. The Triumph is well worth checking out, by the way. You can get massive sizes of the prints from the Victoria and Albert Museum HEY GAL posted:oh my god oh my god oh my god He does this in a number of pieces, including two of the examples in my last post, and I'm fairly sure I've mentioned it to you before. Notably he includes it in the best work of art of all time, which is unnamed but may be a collage of his memories from Marignano (click it):  Grand Prize Winner posted:young folks dating much like we do and not getting married into their thirties This is not unique to Southern France but was normal behaviour throughout Europe through the 17th c (and maybe the 18th c? idk) among non-noble people. I mean "non-noble" fairly broadly, encompassing knights up to about the 13th century. There is actually a very practical rationale for this, which was essentially that these men and women were not established (did not have property or a business of their own) and so could not create and raise families. Knights who were not established were called iuvenes, and it was a stage of life that could go on for some time. William Marshall remained a iuvene into his early 40s. With some exceptions (e.g. knights), unmarried people would generally live with their parents. In other words, the "millenial" trend is the norm in the broad historical scope, and it's their parents, grandparents, and (sometimes) great grandparents who are aberrations. Among the nobility, however (where you need to secure succession) we have much earlier marriage ages. That said, prior to the age of maturity (14 iirc) they would not be married, but only promised to be married. Rodrigo Diaz fucked around with this message at 19:58 on Jan 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 19:54
|
|
|
Gosh, getting steamy in here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:the best work of art of all time
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:Well, well, saw this post on the cell, didn't read it completely and assumed it's about another thing that Hegel told me about.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:There are opposite gender roles, and those are more important than biological sex since these people love order and hierarchy and are terrified of anything that might threaten that, but beneath those there is one biological sex and that is male. That's really interesting. You've mentioned before that there were female soldiers who posed as men-- so if they played the masculine gender role, and had the same "biological" sex as everyone else, did that make them like... honorary men? Have you ever run across a story of one who was found out before death? Or one who was known to be female by some of her comrades, but was permitted to go on living and working as a man anyway? Rodrigo Diaz posted:Note the devil's big droopy balls and flat rear end. History is cool
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 01:29
|
|
|
This may also be interesting on the same subject: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n19/colm-toibin/ravishing swamp waste posted:That's really interesting. You've mentioned before that there were female soldiers who posed as men-- so if they played the masculine gender role, and had the same "biological" sex as everyone else, did that make them like... honorary men? Have you ever run across a story of one who was found out before death? Or one who was known to be female by some of her comrades, but was permitted to go on living and working as a man anyway? But I'm familiar with two cases from the 17th where...I'm not going to say "women pretending to be men," for reasons you'll see shortly--were found out while they were alive. One ended well for them and one ended badly. 1. Catalina Erauso https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalina_de_Erauso was an Alfarez in a Spanish army in the New World. She had been put in a convent at the age of four but escaped, dressed like a guy, and hopped a ship to Chile. Once in the New World, she joined the army. Many of the Erausos were soldiers, that probably had something to do with it. If this story couldn't get more Spanish, at one point she fought her brother in a duel and killed him (he didn't know who she was). Eventually she told someone and the story became super famous--remember, this is the age of widespread lay literacy. It's now possible to be a media superstar. According to her memoirs, she eventually went back to Europe and had an audience with the Pope, who gave her permission to keep living like she did. Whether this is true or not, she went back to the New World and worked as a mule driver, again under an assumed male identity, and lived like that for the rest of her life. Someone met her during this time, recognized her ("hey, aren't you that person from that book?"), and said that her skin was bad because of the sun (yeah, it's the New World) and that she looked like a eunuch. I wish I knew what the original said, because some languages have a lot of ways of talking about people who aren't really one thing or the other that we translate as "eunuch." 2. Elena/Eleno de Cespedes https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleno_de_C%C3%A9spedes was born a woman. But as he told the story later, after she gave birth he became a man. Physically. So he decided to be a man from then on, became a surgeon, got married to a woman, and joined the army. (I don't know if it's their writing style or what, but lots of 17th century people just roll with things that would completely floor us. I mean, whether you welcome it or not, changing your physical sex would be a massive deal for us. See also Maria Cordula von Pranckh's son's teeth all erupting at once.) After he left the army, an old army acquaintance in the same town where he lived grassed on him to the Inquisition for "having two sexes." So he (they?) went to trial. He was examined twice by the same people. The first examination ruled he was a man, the second one ruled she was a woman who had surgically altered herself--the reason the examiner couldn't spot it the first time was, of course, magic. De Cespedes was forced to give up their surgical career and live as a woman, working for free in the hospital where they were imprisoned. What was actually going on with them, physically? We can never know. Here is a case from the tail end of the Thirty Years' War where the disguised woman was found after her death. HEY GAL posted:
HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 08:18 on Jan 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 08:08
|
|
|
Here are some quotes from medical professionals: http://web.stanford.edu/class/history13/earlysciencelab/body1/femalebodypages/genitalia.html Here are two early modern diagrams of the female reproductive organs. Vagina on the left, vagina and uterus on the right.  And here is one modern diagram:  It's the exact same organs--if you display it whole, it looks like "a penis, but inside the body," but if you display it cut through, it looks like "the opposite of the male reproductive organs." It would be absurd to say that your culture shapes reality, I hate that pomo bullshit. But culture definitely shapes how you interpret that reality, and the meaning it has for you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 08:32
|
|
|
As a gay man, if I ever get transported back in time I will have to strongly consider being a landschneckt after these past couple of pages.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 08:47
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 08:50
|
|
|
I definitely need to start doing squats again.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 15:35
|
|
|
It takes a Man's man to defend oneself solely with extraordinary taste in fashion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
So I'm writing a story, which takes place in a fictional setting but is directly inspired by early Renaissance Eurasia. The main character is a female mercenary, which is unusual but not unheard of in the context of the narrative (i.e. the culture is more liberal towards women than most, and this particular war has dragged on long enough that the supply of military-age men is dangerously low.) I'm making a real effort to be somewhat plausible, even if there's no direct historical parallel, and I was hoping to get some input on some of these elements: 1.) Her mercenary company numbers about 150, with relatively few horses (the same war that's killed of all the men has had a similar effect on horses.) They operate somewhat like modern partisans- attacking from ambush, raiding supply trains, feinting for a larger force, intercepting messengers, etc. They operate mostly in rough terrain, since they have no cavalry. Plausible? 2.) She doesn't care much for swords, considering them expensive, delicate, and hard to use. She's theoretically had training, but none of her teachers were remotely qualified, so her swordsmanship is crap. Given the nature of her outfit, she generally fights with a crossbow, resorting to a hatchet and dagger up close. I justify this by an axe and knife having plenty of non-combat uses, especially when behind enemy lines. Plausible? 3.) For the physics-inclined, would it be possible for her to throw her hatchet into an enemy's face and have it kill them? She's strong and the weapon is good steel, but skulls are tough, especially head-on... Thanks for any advice/input, I really appreciate it!
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 04:31
|
|
|
I'm no expert, but:EggsAisle posted:2.) She doesn't care much for swords, considering them expensive, delicate, and hard to use. She's theoretically had training, but none of her teachers were remotely qualified, so her swordsmanship is crap. Given the nature of her outfit, she generally fights with a crossbow, resorting to a hatchet and dagger up close. I justify this by an axe and knife having plenty of non-combat uses, especially when behind enemy lines. Plausible? EggsAisle posted:3.) For the physics-inclined, would it be possible for her to throw her hatchet into an enemy's face and have it kill them? She's strong and the weapon is good steel, but skulls are tough, especially head-on... So it depends on how you write it! Perhaps she does it in the heat of the moment without thinking, and gets lucky-and then afterwards realizes just what a bad idea that was. Or a commanding officer chews her out for it. You're a loose cannon, you're gonna get yourself killed!
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 06:25
|
|
|
EggsAisle posted:So I'm writing a story, which takes place in a fictional setting but is directly inspired by early Renaissance Eurasia. The main character is a female mercenary, which is unusual but not unheard of in the context of the narrative (i.e. the culture is more liberal towards women than most, and this particular war has dragged on long enough that the supply of military-age men is dangerously low.) I'm making a real effort to be somewhat plausible, even if there's no direct historical parallel, and I was hoping to get some input on some of these elements: Going through the list. 1.) Generally plausible, companies in the New Model Army were around 140-200 men, so it's a perfectly reasonable size. The tactics make sense, although it might be worth giving thought to how they compensate for their lack of horsemen. For instance, intercepting messengers can be difficult if you cannot outpace them and get ahead of them. Researching scouting would be a good idea, to see how they avoid detection and generally ensure knowledge. 2.) That is pretty reasonable, and actually happened in the British army, or at least colonial British army. From what I remember of my trip to Fort Loudoun they said soldiers hated the swords (called hangers) they were given, and would prefer tomahawks instead. So it is definitely plausible. However, I will say she will be at a significant disadvantage against a swordsman, because she's using short weapons – a swordsman fighting against her would have advantages in reach, things like hand protection, and probably a weapon slightly quicker on the defence (hatchet or dagger is not my first choice for a weapon to defend with). In short, plausible, but make sure to include difficulties when she goes up against a sword-armed opponent. She'd probably need to rely on surprise or distraction, or some other trick to get past the sword first. Combined with the partisan element, it can be feasible since she'd rely heavily on catching her opponents off-guard and be really good at it, but she finds herself in trouble when the sword-armed foe is ready. The character having misconceptions about swords due to bad teachers is a nice character trait in my opinion, the tricky part is writing it in a way that shows it's the character being clueless and not the writer. 3.) Not sure about the plausibility of splitting skulls, but some experimenting with throwing axes is here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LV0GsU5X_FY While I would not call it a reliable tactic, the wounds from that could still easily be fatal, and the force of the axe striking could knock them senseless. It might not be a fancy instant-kill, but the combination of mortally wounded + stunned would make a lot of sense. My advice is make sure the results vary. She might get lucky one time, but other times throwing the hatchet will not take her opponent down. And if she makes a habit of throwing axes at people, it should be when she has more than one handy. :P
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 06:41
|
|
|
EggsAisle posted:3.) For the physics-inclined, would it be possible for her to throw her hatchet into an enemy's face and have it kill them? She's strong and the weapon is good steel, but skulls are tough, especially head-on... I don't think the physics of it is important here. If she doesn't carry a sword then throwing her axe at someone means she is no longer holding a weapon, and is going to die.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 10:54
|
|
|
mossyfisk posted:I don't think the physics of it is important here. If she doesn't carry a sword then throwing her axe at someone means she is no longer holding a weapon, and is going to die. Assuming she only has the one hatchet on her person. If she has a spare (and is perhaps holding it in her other hand) it becomes a lot more reasonable. Personally I like thrown weapons because I'm not a fan of entering your opponent's reach without having already made at least some effort to take them down from a safe distance. I love Roman pila and plumbata for that reason. Maybe it only works 1 time in 5, but if you do it 10 times that's 2 fewer opponents to fight up close.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 17:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 15:12 |
|
|
EggsAisle posted:So I'm writing a story, which takes place in a fictional setting but is directly inspired by early Renaissance Eurasia. The main character is a female mercenary, which is unusual but not unheard of in the context of the narrative (i.e. the culture is more liberal towards women than most, and this particular war has dragged on long enough that the supply of military-age men is dangerously low.) I'm making a real effort to be somewhat plausible, even if there's no direct historical parallel, and I was hoping to get some input on some of these elements: Eurasia? Then why a crossbow? What you describe sounds like a job for Crimean Tartars. Ever heard of the Akinci? Their raids are legendary. You'd need alot of horses though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 19:46
|
|