|
it's fine to mix different eras of armor, people wore older designs if it was all they could get their hands on or if they were better suited for the specific fight at hand. what doesn't make sense and just makes the characters look dumb is over-armoring the extremities while having lovely torso armor, no helmet, etc. all of that is fine if the armor is just aesthetic, like for a superhero or something, but if you're outfitting a character that's supposed to be a normal person fighting in a pre-gunpowder war their design will intuitively feel less silly to the audience if it follows a sensible priority list for the tradeoff between armor and cost/speed/etc.
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 17:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 05:53 |
|
|
no one wears helmets in the movies and absolutely no one wears functional face protection, outside of obvious stunt doubles. you don't pay tens of millions of dollars for a famous face and cover it up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 18:11
|
|
|
CoolCab posted:no one wears helmets in the movies and absolutely no one wears functional face protection, outside of obvious stunt doubles. you don't pay tens of millions of dollars for a famous face and cover it up. Kingdom of God
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 18:17
|
|
|
CoolCab posted:no one wears helmets in the movies and absolutely no one wears functional face protection, outside of obvious stunt doubles. you don't pay tens of millions of dollars for a famous face and cover it up. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 18:17
|
|
|
Feels unfair to compare most movies to a superlative movie. Azza Bamboo posted:Then everyone must be boring It's quite a shame how dedicated contemporary pop culture is to making the past so much less colorful than we know it was. Just randomly covering stuff in mud to indicate 'the past' is parallel to the yellow filter to indicate 'Mexico,' it makes the movie both less honest and less interesting.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 18:24
|
|
|
CoolCab posted:no one wears helmets in the movies and absolutely no one wears functional face protection, outside of obvious stunt doubles. you don't pay tens of millions of dollars for a famous face and cover it up. face protection was relatively low priority compared to just keeping a guy with a club from cracking your skull open and officers sometimes forewent face protection that would interfere with shouting orders so it's not that wild to show the famous face, it's just wild that they don't have any head protection at all
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 18:42
|
|
|
 Hollywood likes to do what it do.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 18:43
|
|
|
Grevling posted:
Theres no real good definition for domestication. And we don't really know what any of the husbandry looked like, but there was obviously some because you can't just hatch a chick and toss it into the woods and then expect it to survive. They were likely at least raised in some way until they were able to be independent. Nah, its possible but many of the sampled egg shells don't show any signs of burning when they were later in the development stage and there's no real reason to think they were eating em raw. Cassowary rearing is also something seen ethnographically, which may mean something even though it's 18,000 years or so down the line. Telsa Cola fucked around with this message at 19:38 on Sep 30, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 19:27
|
|
|
Cast_No_Shadow posted:Kingdom of God Did you mean Kingdom of Heaven? I still maintain that the Director's cut of it is Ridley Scott's last good film.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 19:35
|
|
|
Telsa Cola posted:Theres no real good definition for domestication. And we don't really know what any of the husbandry looked like, but there was obviously some because you can't just hatch a chick and toss it into the woods and then expect it to survive. They were likely at least raised in some way until they were able to be independent. You're right, that's me being too quick on the take trigger there. I suppose what I find unlikely is that the cassowaries were "bred" and became more docile, but that's just me speculating again.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 20:09
|
|
|
Grevling posted:You're right, that's me being too quick on the take trigger there. I suppose what I find unlikely is that the cassowaries were "bred" and became more docile, but that's just me speculating again. That kind of domesticization can happen remarkably quickly if it's selected for. Turns out there's a pretty common gene for friendliness and it doesn't take more than a few generations of selecting for it to make a big difference. https://www.science.org/news/2018/0...rchers%20write.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 20:18
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:That kind of domesticization can happen remarkably quickly if it's selected for. Turns out there's a pretty common gene for friendliness and it doesn't take more than a few generations of selecting for it to make a big difference. i wouldn't take "they found a gene in foxes they think correlates to tameness" to imply that the same is true for birds eke out fucked around with this message at 20:31 on Sep 30, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 20:28
|
|
|
poo poo, I wish I could domesticate my parrots, let alone something that can kick me to death.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 20:30
|
|
|
TBF we are making an assumption here and that is "the route to domestication must be associated with our positive traits of domestication - tolerance to humans, predisposition to less violent behaviour, etc". it is possible to imagine a domestication that accomplishes none of those things - maybe they used them as fighting animals like some humans do to roosters and entirely via "natural" selection they got nastier. or like stallions/bulls in selecting for something else like hardiness or mass or similar they created a monster - I don't think its at all likely but it's possible.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 22:13
|
|
|
I don't really know if we can say if they were bred to be docile or not but there's a possibility they were bred to increase access to their associated products (hatched, raised, released and associate humans with good times meaning you can catch them easier) or the young ones were traded as a valuable good (again, ethnographically supported). Also imo docility is probably fairly easy to breed for in most species if you have a real concentrated attempt at it and use modern techniques.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 22:41
|
|
|
Tulip posted:Feels unfair to compare most movies to a superlative movie. There's evidence that entire castles were painted in gaudy checkerboard patterns at one point and I do want to see it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2021 02:12
|
|
|
Azza Bamboo posted:There's evidence that entire castles were painted in gaudy checkerboard patterns at one point and I do want to see it. something something only when it comes from the dazzle region of France
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2021 02:16
|
|
|
Azza Bamboo posted:There's evidence that entire castles were painted in gaudy checkerboard patterns at one point and I do want to see it. Fort Mackenzie-Childs is like this
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2021 02:21
|
|
|
Azza Bamboo posted:There's evidence that entire castles were painted in gaudy checkerboard patterns at one point and I do want to see it. We like to imagine that things were bland in the past because paint doesn't last very long while stonework lasts thousands of years. The reality is people have always been gaudy jackasses because people have always been people. Think of the variety you see in housing decorations in non-HOA/deed restricted communities in various parts of the USA.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2021 02:22
|
|
|
Just cover the whole thing in mirrors so no-one can stand to look at it long enough to figure out how to attack it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2021 02:23
|
|
|
I like that somebody went to the effort of building the walls of Angers in patterned black and white stone.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2021 02:28
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
  Freshly painted everything would have been a hilarious shade of red.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2021 02:29
|
|
|
Telsa Cola posted:I don't really know if we can say if they were bred to be docile or not but there's a possibility they were bred to increase access to their associated products (hatched, raised, released and associate humans with good times meaning you can catch them easier) or the young ones were traded as a valuable good (again, ethnographically supported). this is something that comes up in guns germs and steel so apologies if it's pop-history or wrong i know that book isn't supremely highly well regarded, but not all species are as susceptible to domestication as others. the example used there is zebras who are notorious assholes and who if you can manage to tame will still just up and bite their beloved master to death on a whim, and the process of breeding out that trait would involve a lot of dead zebra keepers. social or herd animals are much more susceptible as quite often they are already inclined towards desirable social behaviours. with that said it's still kind of a crapshoot and tons of weird or esoteric factors can make otherwise desirable candidates totally unsuitable; i think he uses the example of a cheeta which will only mate if they have a few miles of savana to do so in. good luck building a breeding program around that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2021 02:29
|
|
|
Azza Bamboo posted:There's evidence that entire castles were painted in gaudy checkerboard patterns at one point and I do want to see it. uh yeah where else would you find a king hanging out with some knights
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2021 02:35
|
|
|
CoolCab posted:this is something that comes up in guns germs and steel so apologies if it's pop-history or wrong i know that book isn't supremely highly well regarded, but not all species are as susceptible to domestication as others. the example used there is zebras who are notorious assholes and who if you can manage to tame will still just up and bite their beloved master to death on a whim, and the process of breeding out that trait would involve a lot of dead zebra keepers. The zebra one is exactly the one that comes to mind as being really bad/a lovely example because from what research I have done into it they literally just tried to treat them like feral horses, and were suprised when you can't just break them and ride them. From my understanding there was no dedicated breeding program where the partners were actually selected and then the offspring of said animals further selected. They just tried to grab zebras and break them to a harness or a saddle and got suprised when it proceeded to kick their face off. Aurochs are also a reaaally good counter example. The ancestors to modern cattle were famous for being huge assholes and would have definitely hosed up people worse than a zebra. Telsa Cola fucked around with this message at 02:49 on Oct 1, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2021 02:36
|
|
|
Telsa Cola posted:
Red pigment is cheap!
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2021 02:37
|
|
|
Grevling posted:I don't think you can say any culture from 18,000 years ago is continuous with any modern one, but also there were certainly groups then who haven't left descendents (probably many). We have proof of that through genetic sequencing of fossils. FWIW, pre-contact Aboriginal Australian cultures probably match those of previous generations for more than 18k ya.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2021 02:43
|
|
|
For an animal to be domesticatable before contemporary times it needed to more or less fill out this checklist. 1: Can you trap it in a fence? 2: Does it have a social system you can make yourself the leader of? 3: Is its breeding cycle short enough you can keep track of and manipulate it without modern record keeping or even literacy? 4: Is its flight or flight response at the goldilocks spot where it won't either try to immediately kill everything in sight or have a heart attack if it sees a human? 5: Is its food both readily available and inedible to humans? If you don't have these you essentially can't domesticate it. A few (specifically Dogs, Cats, and Pigs) can fudge number 5 a little bit because they can scavenge, hunt, or eat trash (which while it has to be "produced" unlike grass, no human society can't produce trash). Then you have to take into account resource considerations. Like no pre-industrialized society would create those Russian Foxes because that's a huge resource investment to get nothing in return. Every other domesticated animal has a pretty apparent and relatively quick resource repayment in either food or work. And the ones like Cats and Dogs outright had a resource "discount" in that they self-domesticated.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2021 02:47
|
|
|
galagazombie posted:For an animal to be domesticatable before contemporary times it needed to more or less fill out this checklist. Most birds don't meet this criteria. Besides 3. Imprinting might let you bypass 2 though. Rabbits only meet 1,3,5. Wild Boar are infamous for loving people up, so I don't think they would meet 4. Id also argue that we don't make ourselves the leader of many herd animals groups. Fox domestication could have come about for access to their furs, your group having a ready access to valuable trade goods would be pretty significant. Animals were commonly traded as prestige items. Telsa Cola fucked around with this message at 03:25 on Oct 1, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2021 02:50
|
|
|
I think the word "domestication" isn't being used particularly well here, "tamed" is probably better. The behavior they think they've found is humans raiding cassowary nests, eating less developed eggs but hatching and rearing more mature eggs, raising the birds for an as-yet-unknown purpose, but probably as food. I don't think you can really call this domestication, but it is a pretty unique exploitation of a pretty unique resource: big blue murder birds.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2021 03:42
|
|
|
FishFood posted:I think the word "domestication" isn't being used particularly well here, "tamed" is probably better. The behavior they think they've found is humans raiding cassowary nests, eating less developed eggs but hatching and rearing more mature eggs, raising the birds for an as-yet-unknown purpose, but probably as food. I don't think you can really call this domestication, but it is a pretty unique exploitation of a pretty unique resource: big blue murder birds. Again, there's no really good definition for domestication that doesnt have a bunch of caveats or exceptions. For example, the repeated raising and releasing would technically fit one definitions criteria of multi-generational because you would be presumably be doing the cycle all over again with eggs of the prior generation you raised, even if you were harvesting said eggs in the wild.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2021 03:47
|
|
|
Telsa Cola posted:Most birds don't meet this criteria. Besides 3. Imprinting might let you bypass 2 though. Rabbits only meet 1,3,5. Wild Boar are infamous for loving people up, so I don't think they would meet 4. The two real domesticated bird’s (the chicken and duck) actually do fit those criteria. They have hierarchy, can eat without cutting into the humans food supply, can be fenced in even if you have to pluck some feathers to do it. While harvested as food in a similar way to fish farms since classical Rome, Rabbits weren’t really truly domesticated until the modern era so aren’t really pertinent to what I was talking about. And while it’s true that a boar is dangerous, it’s no more so than say a bull. Most boars are not hogzilla. And almost all boar attacks are done by males in rut, while genetic evidence shows pig domestication most likely was based around breeding the matriarchal female groups while letting the solitary males run wild.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2021 06:06
|
|
|
Tulip posted:It's quite a shame how dedicated contemporary pop culture is to making the past so much less colorful than we know it was. Just randomly covering stuff in mud to indicate 'the past' is parallel to the yellow filter to indicate 'Mexico,' it makes the movie both less honest and less interesting. I love this article talking about historical accuracy in film and television: https://www.exurbe.com/the-borgias-vs-borgia-faith-and-fear/ It's mostly comparing the two Borgia series from several years ago, but it talks about historical accuracy without being distracting. The writer talks about a pair of pants for a Viking Lord that were orange and white striped, which would have been historical accurate for reasons relating to costs of the dye and keeping white fabric clean, which would be impressive to the people of the time, but that are distracting clown pants to a modern audience.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2021 07:40
|
|
|
So much of modern sensibilities around aesthetics, from muted colors to bleached marbles, is because we live in the wake of the British empire run by deeply repressed Victorian perverts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2021 11:02
|
|
|
I think the better evidence that zebras, or bison, or rhinos, can't be domesticated is that people lived next to them for thousands of years before europeans showed up and failed to do it. People like the comanche became rivals at horsemanship to the mongols immediately after getting them. Would the comanche not use bison cavalry if that was feasible? There's also the obvious example of elephants. Were africans too dumb to think the giant creature with swords on its face might be useful in a war, or are african elephants different from indian and maghreb elephants?
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2021 14:09
|
|
|
Elissimpark posted:I love this article talking about historical accuracy in film and television: Ada Palmer is really good, this article is really good, read her blog read her sci-fi. The modern TV show about Wu Zetian famously has much more prudish clothes than would be period appropriate, which is fun given the wrong assumption that the 21st century is the super horniest century.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2021 14:58
|
|
|
African elephants have been tamed in the past tho they were probably a separate “species” to the extent that work means anything
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2021 15:40
|
|
|
euphronius posted:African elephants have been tamed in the past tho they were probably a separate “species” to the extent that work means anything Yeah, separate species. Modern African bush elephants have never been used in warfare, apparently. https://acoup.blog/2019/07/26/collections-war-elephants-part-i-battle-pachyderms/
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2021 16:00
|
|
|
Going by acoup tho that might just be because elephants aren't exactly a winning warfare strategy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2021 16:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 05:53 |
|
|
Silver2195 posted:Yeah, separate species. Modern African bush elephants have never been used in warfare, apparently. There hasn't been any real genetic work figuring out what species they were, it's possible they were a northern population of African forest elephants, which your link also points out. Your link also calls infant elephants cubs which is uh, odd. Telsa Cola fucked around with this message at 16:10 on Oct 1, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2021 16:07
|
|