|
aphid_licker posted:Are we just posting MAJOR HUNKS now? The beautiful goat has won my heart, and, I think we can safely say, the thread 
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 05:50 |
|
|
HEY GAL posted:i made an ugly graph This all the data from your work? Nice to see you're finally getting some prettish graphs out of it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
nothing to seehere posted:This all the data from your work? Nice to see you're finally getting some prettish graphs out of it. my entire phd draws on every single muster roll from this war that exists in this archive. where records are thick enough, i can track the whereabouts of individual dudes by the month. this is much less work, many fewer sources. this is cav, i'm going to add infantry and dragoons to that
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
Grenrow posted:Does anyone know what these light cavalry hats/helmets are called? Sorry to bring something up from a couple of pages back but I've seen this referred to as a Tarleton, I think. Currently reading Mark Urban's Fusiliers, about a British fusilier regiment in the revolutionary war, and he discusses how one of the British generals (Howe, I think) brought in uniform reforms for the light infantry, one of which was the replacement of the tricorn with a "leather cap", I think the idea behind it is it makes moving around/handling your weapon (hurhur) a lot easier than the tricorn that was the norm for British line infantry at the time. I've seen headgear that spans the gamut from being very similar to what you posted but with a small peak right up to ones that look like a smaller version of the grenadier's mitre. Also, for some reason the light infantry at the time were nicknamed the "light bobs". Here, have a pic: 
Owlkill fucked around with this message at 20:38 on Aug 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
18th century uniforms are so... well there's just something about them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
I believe a Tartleton is a catch all term for some of those helmets and hats. I don't think there is an actual specific singular hat called it.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
Tias posted:The beautiful goat has won my heart, and, I think we can safely say, the thread Cry havoc and let slip the goats of war
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 20:38
|
|
HEY GAL posted:18th century uniforms are so... I sometimes miss the late 18th century coats with the tails and half breeches when we get into the late Napoleonic Wars, though coatee and trousers do make more sense.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:Are we just posting MAJOR HUNKS now? Speaking of all these dudes what's with the hats that don't fit? I notice it on a bunch of parade uniforms.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:I sometimes miss the late 18th century coats with the tails and half breeches when we get into the late Napoleonic Wars, though coatee and trousers do make more sense.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
Owlkill posted:Sorry to bring something up from a couple of pages back... This is a history thread, we don't mind.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 20:43
|
|
HEY GAL posted:something rad vanished from the world when the dudes could no longer dress like the 17th century tho I really want the coat the antagonist has in A Field In England. It's a pretty boss coat.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask / Tell > Ask Us About Military History And Fashion Mk III Not that I mind
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:I really want the coat the antagonist has in A Field In England. It's a pretty boss coat. here we are. From Warlord Games, in fact, because  .quote:Originally the mounted arm of the Lifeguard consisted of two Harquebusier companies, but by 1627 when Ottavio Piccolomini (who became a famed cavalry commander in his own right) was installed as Commander of the Lifeguard it had expanded to one company of armoured lancers, one of Harquebusiers, one of Dragoons and one company of Croats. Shortly after a second company of harquebusiers were add. both piccolomini and gallas spent time as commanders of that unit, which is...uh... anyway, imagine seeing that coming at you on the field! there's a reason his cape was shot to tatters at luetzen
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
Elyv posted:The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask / Tell > Ask Us About Military History And Fashion Mk III 
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
Owlkill posted:Sorry to bring something up from a couple of pages back but I've seen this referred to as a Tarleton, I think. Currently reading Mark Urban's Fusiliers, about a British fusilier regiment in the revolutionary war, and he discusses how one of the British generals (Howe, I think) brought in uniform reforms for the light infantry, one of which was the replacement of the tricorn with a "leather cap", I think the idea behind it is it makes moving around/handling your weapon (hurhur) a lot easier than the tricorn that was the norm for British line infantry at the time. I've seen headgear that spans the gamut from being very similar to what you posted but with a small peak right up to ones that look like a smaller version of the grenadier's mitre. Also, for some reason the light infantry at the time were nicknamed the "light bobs". Thank you, that's good info. I wonder if there was also an element of extra protection to the leather caps. Those caps probably weren't too thick, but it seems like even thin leather would make for better protection than a basic felt tricorn. Was this more or less a British thing? I know that the British developed their light infantry units in response to the pressures of the French and Indian War, which makes me wonder how much of an impact American colonial war had on the British army as a whole. Were British officers in India looking to the American experience? I'm rambling a bit because I changed my MA thesis topic to 19th century British colonial warfare. So I'll be asking lots of questions in here about the late 18th century British army over the next month or so.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
Let me tell you about a man called John Moore....
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
Grenrow posted:Thank you, that's good info. I wonder if there was also an element of extra protection to the leather caps. Those caps probably weren't too thick, but it seems like even thin leather would make for better protection than a basic felt tricorn. Was this more or less a British thing? I know that the British developed their light infantry units in response to the pressures of the French and Indian War, which makes me wonder how much of an impact American colonial war had on the British army as a whole. Were British officers in India looking to the American experience? I'm rambling a bit because I changed my MA thesis topic to 19th century British colonial warfare. So I'll be asking lots of questions in here about the late 18th century British army over the next month or so. Leather helmets of varying styles came in and out of fashion repeatedly during the 18th and 19th centuries; the French adopted them for a time during the Revolutionary Wars, the Russians had them as part of the "Potemkin uniform" in the 1780s and 90s, the Austrians used them during the 1790s and first half of the Napoleonic period, and so forth. And, of course, there's the famous Pickelhaube the Prussians adopted later in the 1800s. In many cases shakos were similar in concept. If you look at many examples, they have hardened leather tops, headbands and reinforcing strips to add what I assume was protection from blows and cuts. Unless you were talking about light infantry units, but there's plenty of stuff to talk about there, too!
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
We need a "HEY GAL posts that dude" counter. You're like, at 8 or so by now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:haha I'm glad I'm not the only one who had this as my first thought.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 21:59
|
|
.|
So, in my previous post we established that even before Typhoon from June to early October the German military had already significantly degraded, particularly in terms of the loss of vehicles, and that they were losing these vehicles to severe logistical problems as well as in tough combat against superior vehicles which were exponentially better handled after the first few months of the war; they were also losing ireplaceable recruits to an opponent who, despite taking huge losses at the encirclements at Viazma, Briansk and Kiev, was still increasing the size of his forces. All these problems manifested themselves even more dramatically in Typhoon as the lines of supply extended further and the Russian raputitsa took hold. Sorry if this is boring, but I think looking at the numbers like this just shows you what the cost to the German mobile forces was for all of the ground gained and horrific casualties inflicted, and what that meant for mobile warfare in the east moving forward, as well as letting me diarise this book some more! Panzer Production vs Combat Losses In the previous post we saw that half of Bocks panzers were concentrated in two divisions owing to limited replacement tanks being issued to Hoth, Hoepner and Guderian after Barbarossa and before Typhoon. What was the overall pattern? In 1941 Germany manufactured 3,709 tanks, including armoured flamethrower and AA tanks and assault guns. Of these, 278 were Mark IIs (includes AA and flamethrower tanks), 698 were Czech 38(t)s, 2253 were Mark IIIs (includes assault guns) and 480 were Mark IVs; in January a total of 208 of all types were produced, by December this was 367. By this time the Mark I is not in production. Combat losses of these models in 1941 these losses dont include losses for technical reasons leading to the tank being unable to be serviced, were 3007 and only occurred between June and December (apart from 32 that exploded in January)! Of these 457 were Mark Is 460 were Mark IIs, 796 were Czech 38(t)s, 915 were Mark IIIs and 379 were Mark IVs. More or less only the III/Stug is being manufactured faster than its being lost in combat! Losses peaked in three months in particular: 731 in July, 634 in August, and 519 in December; total production in those months was 285, 373 and 367 respectively. The total losses for Typhoons main period of October-December were 1229 tanks and assault guns. However, you dont just have to compare these numbers to losses, you can compare to Soviet production. Even as the USSR is being swept across a giant front October production for the Germans was 387; Soviet Production 500. The Soviet tanks were also better models, and their advantage in production was in large part owing to much more comprehensive and well oriented mobilisation, as well as superiority in resources and workers: the USSR realised it would be a long and difficult war from the start. The USSR produced 6,590 tanks in 1941; over 24,000 the next year; German production actually sagged slightly below winter 1941 levels in the first months of 1942 because Hitler was building things like ships and engine turbines and added up to only 9,200 tanks by years end. Soviet production of tanks was distributed something like this in the last quarter of 1941: 441 KV-1s, 765 T-34s, 1,388 T-60s. Moreover, lend lease was coming in from Britain on an ambitious timetable by mid October. The Soviets werent thrilled with what they got: Hurricanes, Universal Carriers, Matildas and Valentines though they were quite happy to have more heavy tanks instead of their T-60s. In total 466 British tanks made it to the USSR in 1941, to only 27 American M3s. They were a bit happier with the Curtiss Tomahawks. How did this break down in Typhoon? As weve seen, Bock had about 1600 tanks on October 2, but those tanks were extremely concentrated in two fresh divisions, which had approximately 450 each, while the other 12 of Bocks divions had approximately 750 between them. Those depleted divisons started Typhoon thin and got thinner. Take Langermann-Erlancamps 4th Panzer Division. part of Guderians panzer group. By the 6th of October the Division had 56 tanks of all models when they fought the 1st Guards Rifle Corps on the road to Mtensk, and encountered well handled T-34s for the first time. The 4th had a numerical advantage in tanks: the Soviets had 45 of all models. Although 17 Soviet tanks were allegedly lost to 10 German, the Soviets held the field and by the 9th they had just 30 operational tanks for no gain of ground (this ends with Guderian consolidating the entire division to one brigade). By 20 October, and after brutal fighting at Mtsensk, 4th Pz had 46 tanks after repairs and scrounging, down from an original strength of 205. He had only 41 guns, down from 57, and almost no officers. Ammunition supply trucks were down to just 18% of normal establishment, fuel trucks at 40%. Overall, 4th Pzs strength was approximately that of a fully equipped regiment, but Hitler still expected to perform as a division when assigning it to attack towards Tula. This wasnt restriced to just this division of Guderians: Kempfss XXXXVIII Panzer Corps were assigned to attack Kursk (ridiculously, as it was 460 km from Moscow). Hubicki, part of the corps and in command of 9th Pz, was supposed to be spearheading part of this offensive, but he protested furiously. On 20 October Hubicki had 7 serviceable tanks, and one of his motorised regiments, which was supposed to have 287 trucks, had only 51. The Infantry that was supposed to follow Guderians spearheads were similarly decimated: he commanded Waegers XXXIV Army Corps, Kaempfes XXXV Army Corps, Weisenbergers LIIIs Army Corps and Heinricis XXXIII Army Corps, amounting to 11 & 1/3 infantry divisions), and they were taken apart. Despite being more mobile in the bad weather that had now hit by October 20 in the form of rain and cold, these infantry divisions averaged 1km of movement per hour and were more exposed to the cold conditions. The average company combat strength in Kaempfes Corps was 50, down from 150 ideally, and many of these were sick because you had to be deathly ill to be exempt from duty: 50% of all illness reported between September 1941-August 1942 related to cold weather. The Horses did just as poorly: in Hoths Panzer Group 3, 1,000 horses died a day. Weisenberger, in Guderians Panzer Armys LIIIs corps, left half of his horses behind when he advanced away from Briansk towards Tula in mid October; the panje horses they stole to replace these losses could not pull a 105 or 150mm gun, which took 6 and 8 large and healthy German draft horses respectively in good weather. Many of the horses werent shod for winter. Bock later reports seeing a single gun being pulled by 24 horses. They ate, for lack of fodder, straw roofs, birch twigs and tree bark. Almost all of these losses were from conditions, particularly mud: of 1,000 horses treated by one veterenary company, only 10% were from enemy fire. In total, even after reinforcements, the entire eastern fronts supply of horses was already at 65% strength by November. Here Stahel makes an his point: when these animals and soldiers are lost, it increases the strain of all those left behind in every way. They hold the same positions, rotate through the same duties, haul much of the same materiel, but among fewer of them. Its no wonder at this point that the USSR goes on a propaganda offensive and German soldiers begin to self-harm in bids to be sent home. Guderian, who had already sustained the heaviest losses of the Panzer Group/Army leaders in Barbarossa, lost 2,000 men in the first 10 days of October and 2,3000 more by 20 October, adding up to 45,643 men since 22 June substantial for a formation of 16 divisions. Its an issue everywhere, not just for Guderian around Tula: The 20th Panzer Division under Thoma in Panzer Group 4 at Maloiaroslavets had only 34 Panzers, only 4 of which were IVs. The 1st Division under Walter Kruger in Panzer Group 3, weresent on a totally ill advised attack towards Torzho and lost 45 tanks in a space of five days driving up to the city and were reduced to 34 serviceable tanks (8 IIs, 22 IIIs, 4 IVs) by October 19th and 16 by the 23rd as it fought its way back to Kalinin from Torzhok. The division was down 4,935 enlisted men and 265 officers since 22 June. A large number of combat battalions in Kirchners XXXXI Panzer Corps, of which Krugers was a part, around Kalinin reported being reduced from 750 to 100-200 men and at the company level from 150 to 25-30. The luftwaffe could provided XXXXI Corps with 30-50 cubic metres of fuel a day they needed 220. Of the tanks that survived, as well, most had racked up more than 10,000km in mileage. Only Hoepners Panzer Group was remotely intact in army group centre: it had started with 780 tanks in October and typical divisional losses were only between ½-1/3. Across the whole eastern front, the truck stock was ruined. Many trucks started the operation on 2 October limping and provisionally repaired. A bunch of the wheeled transport couldnt even handle the good roads in Russia, on a good weather way: an assessment in one Panzer Corps, the XXXXVI, showed that certain models in any conditions were in repair stations 50% of the time; since tractors became necessary to move gear in bad conditions, they also started to be destroyed the tractor fleet of XXXXVI Corps declined from 40 to 4; mobility was only preserved through cannibaisation of both Soviet and German equipment. The bottom line numbers are, from June 22 to mid-November, the vehicle fleet had declined from 600,000 to 75,000 serviceable vehicles. This picture is complicated though: these incredibly shattered divisions are still sometimes proving more useful in getting the job done than new formations that turn up at the front. The shiny 2nd division, for example, was held up for a considerable period of time trying to destroy 3 Soviet tank decoys until some infantry officer decided to walk over and look at them. Stahel says: The required learning curve was on occasion so large that full-strength combat units, without previous experience on the eastern front, were incapable of achieving the same tasks as those units greatly depleted by previous engagements. But having more tanks and materiel would have been a double edged sword anyway: the rail transport was inadequate, and the diminished truck fleet was only capable of moving approximately 6,500 tons a day half of what army group centre needed, and where the weather was bad they couldnt make it to their destination. The air fleet of Ju 52s could only make up another 200 tons a day. On the 8th Guderian wrote: The condition of the supply roads makes orderly supply impossible, individual vehicles can continue only with the help of tractors. As a result munitions and fuel at XXIV Panzer corps are very critical. The mobile forces at Hitler's disposal are completely ruined and not even close to being able to attack Moscow. And how is all of this kind of poo poo going down in Germany? On 24 October, Wagner, the army quartermaster general, writes: At the front it is going very well before Moscow. If the weather was better even faster. We can be satisfied and one hardly thinks that since 2 October we have another 300 kilometres behind is. Insanity, especially when you consider the railheads are so far from the divisions that the supply line from rail at the same time was 300-400km for some divisions, and many of those furthest forward were well below half strength. Though the offensive stalled in the cold and rain of late October with divisions shattered, some with only a few thousand men and a handful of vehicles left fighting desperate defenses, Hitler was planning offensives for when the ground froze. Bodes well, doesnt it?
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
my dad posted:We need a "HEY GAL posts that dude" counter.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 23:05
|
|
Flanker Pylon posted:Leather helmets of varying styles came in and out of fashion repeatedly during the 18th and 19th centuries; the French adopted them for a time during the Revolutionary Wars, the Russians had them as part of the "Potemkin uniform" in the 1780s and 90s, the Austrians used them during the 1790s and first half of the Napoleonic period, and so forth. And, of course, there's the famous Pickelhaube the Prussians adopted later in the 1800s. Some pre-Crimean War Russian soldiers wore leather helmets like the German pickelhaube, but they had a sort of lobster tail thing at the back going with it.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Some pre-Crimean War Russian soldiers wore leather helmets like the German pickelhaube, but they had a sort of lobster tail thing at the back going with it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 23:07
|
|
HEY GAL posted:wait, like the back end of a zischagge? Possibly? I've only seen a picture or two of that helmet, but it certainly has that unique lobster tail thing going about it. Also, I like powdered hair and queues.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 23:20
|
|
|
Speaking of hilarious military fashion, it's traditional in the Russian army to spruce up your uniform a bit shortly before demobilization.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 00:55
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Speaking of hilarious military fashion, it's traditional in the Russian army to spruce up your uniform a bit shortly before demobilization. no Adidas stripes on their pants or squatting? do better, Russians
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 01:10
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Some pre-Crimean War Russian soldiers wore leather helmets like the German pickelhaube, but they had a sort of lobster tail thing at the back going with it. The helmets were technically still part of the uniform during the war (and stuck around for a while afterwards), but it's notable that most of the images/illustrations I've seen of Russian troops in the Crimea show them wearing their forage caps instead. Makes me wonder if the design/materials made them hot and uncomfortable to wear, so they stopped doing it as soon as they could. I do remember that Elting says the French abandoned their Tarleton-style helmets and Napoleon opted for shakos rather than bring them back because of them being uncomfortably hot and malodorous.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:wait, like the back end of a zischagge? Not quite as ample, I'm afraid. The best images I can find on the quick are from the Battle of the Alma reenactment from a few years ago, but they should give you an idea of what they look like: http://www.evpatori.ru/rekonstrukciya-alminskogo-srazheniya-1854-goda.html http://www.evpatori.ru/alminskoe-delo.html
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 01:54
|
|
Flanker Pylon posted:Not quite as ample, I'm afraid. The best images I can find on the quick are from the Battle of the Alma reenactment from a few years ago, but they should give you an idea of what they look like: God I really do love how that British Army uniform looked, a strange combination of retro Napoleonic.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 03:04
|
|
|
In honor of my favorite band releasing a new album, I have a couple questions for the thread. Who would win in fight between Winged Hussars do against the better armies of the 30 year's war? Did the Swiss really just get out classed by Spanish and Landsknecht? Didn't they just try to keep up with tactical and technological improvements instead of just going back to their homes and give up on being mercs?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 03:10
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:I find that hard to believe. Careful examination of Germanic art from the late 15th century like Dürer shows a much clearer lineage to the 16th century style that we know. The patterned slashing in particular has always been presented to me as a Swiss innovation, and I haven't been able to find any examples of it in late 15th century Italian art. This Dürer from 1489 already shows slashing at the shoulders Fantastic post. I'm glad my ignorant rambling has lead to this sort of thing. Speaking of Italian hats, what was the purpose of the Mazzocchio? (The sausage-like cloth wrap on the top dude's helmet in this picture): 
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 03:13
|
|
|
why is bottom right guy wearing a hat that is so much bigger than his head that he can't see while it's on
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 03:25
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:Not all the outfits have crosses and the cross on "M" is very obviously Burgundian. You seem to know a lot about the history of European fashion. Know any good books (preferably with lots of pictures) that provide sort of an overview from... I dunno, some arbitrary point in the distant past until 1840 or so?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 03:27
|
|
|
Elyv posted:why is bottom right guy wearing a hat that is so much bigger than his head that he can't see while it's on War never changes. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 03:31
|
|
|
Elyv posted:why is bottom right guy wearing a hat that is so much bigger than his head that he can't see while it's on I'm not sure you really need to see when you're swinging a Halberd that massive.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 03:57
|
|
|
Elyv posted:The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask / Tell > Ask Us About Military History And Fashion Mk III  Ultima Fashio Regum. Endman posted:Fantastic post. I'm glad my ignorant rambling has lead to this sort of thing. I would assume it's so if you get bonked on the head it doesn't gently caress you up. You would generally wear a pretty hefty cloth cap underneath your helmet because otherwise it doesn't do much good because you're still gonna get hosed if someone smacks you in the head. Pre-industrial hard hat basically. Modern helmets don't bother with it as much because bullets don't impart that much kinetic energy if they hit you, rather they impart it all in one very small area, the main thing is to diffuse the impact a bit, but against guys with heavy melee weapons you want something a bit more padded because even if the sword doesn't cut you it's still a heavy chunk of metal being swung pretty hard. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 04:41 on Aug 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 04:34
|
|
|
Endman posted:Speaking of Italian hats, what was the purpose of the Mazzocchio? (The sausage-like cloth wrap on the top dude's helmet in this picture): Honestly I'm not sure. I can spitball a couple of guesses though: The first is that it might be soaked in water to help keep the helmet (and thus the head) cool. That looks like it fits the helmet right at the line where it meets the head, but since the wet cloth would be on the outside the water wouldn't run into your eyes (hopefully). The second is that it provides one more layer of protection. A thick layer of cloth like that is surprisingly hard to cut through. Though I doubt it would last beyond two blows, that is still two blows to the head that are considerably softened. The third is that it might be a fashion decision, to resemble the turban-type hats that were somewhat popular in Southern Europe at the time. You can see one on the right hand side of this Berrugete painting from the end of the 15th c: http://www.wga.hu/art/b/berrugue/pedro/dominic2.jpg Again, these are all just guesses. Grand Prize Winner posted:You seem to know a lot about the history of European fashion. Know any good books (preferably with lots of pictures) that provide sort of an overview from... I dunno, some arbitrary point in the distant past until 1840 or so? I don't, really! My fashion knowledge is pretty much relegated to the late 15th and early 16th centuries because of my love of the Italian Wars, and the 11th & 12th centuries because of my love of everything. Aside from looking at a lot of artwork with a careful eye, I also learn a lot from talking to Hegel, talking to weavers and spinners, reading an article here or there, and going to museums. The National Museum of Archaeology in Dublin is really great for this, because a lot (the majority?) of their collection is bog finds. The bogs preserve clothing very nicely, though they stain it all a kind of deep brown. Fashion is one of those weird "soft" subjects that few people are interested enough in to pay for serious research, so it often goes by the wayside. There are still cool things from time to time, especially (in the English language) relating to Shakespearean stuff. Here's a couple of cool vids: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ17XEDxlkk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91hysO_suRo edit: Ulinka Rublack, who appears at the start of the 2nd video, wrote this book: https://www.amazon.com/Dressing-Up-Cultural-Identity-Renaissance/dp/0199645183 It's probably pretty good! Rodrigo Diaz fucked around with this message at 05:31 on Aug 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 05:27
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:Fashion is one of those weird "soft" subjects that few people are interested enough in to pay for serious research, so it often goes by the wayside. I know a couple costume designers who are deeply into the history of fashion. If I remember later this week I'll see if I can dig anything up. One of my former professors really knows a lot about this kinda thing but we had a falling out so I'm a little hesitant. vvv: I'll see what I can do. Grand Prize Winner fucked around with this message at 07:20 on Aug 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 05:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 05:50 |
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:I know a couple costume designers who are deeply into the history of fashion. If I remember later this week I'll see if I can dig anything up. One of my former professors really knows a lot about this kinda thing but we had a falling out so I'm a little hesitant. I hear ya. Well I'd be interested to know whatever you encounter
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 05:51
|
|