InsaneJournal

Tweak says, "For is it not written...?"

volksjager (volksjager) wrote in scans_daily,
@ 2009-06-27 12:13:00

Current music:	Blood ponies " he spelled Yale with a 6 "
Entry tags:	char: moonstone/ms. marvel/karla sofen, char: tigra/greer grant, publisher: marvel comics, title: avengers the initiative, title: ms. marvel

evolution of the Ms. Marvel costume (or is it a uniform)

The classic from the 70's...

Moonstone gives her critique ...

This is a junetenah post :)

(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)

	just_mrasaki 2009-06-27 12:26 pm UTC (link)
	Reminds me of this macro that says, "SEXY ARMOR: It worked for the guys in 300, it'll work for us!" the companion macro goes: "SEXY ARMOR: The guys in 300 LOST, you stupid bitch." Poor Ms. Marvel, having to go around all day with swimsuit-riding-up syndrome. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	volksjager 2009-06-27 12:33 pm UTC (link)
	well the Spartans armour was all n their shields. Armour Limits mobility y. The best way to avoid injury is to avoid the ht in the first place ( some would say). A good rant on the subject is John Keagan's "face of Battle" it traces the history of the infantry solder through the ancient to the modern. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	katsaris 2009-06-27 12:50 pm UTC (link)
	That's ludicrous -- don't try to present the "300" armor as anywhere approaching historical. Spartan soldiers in reality were armored head to toe. http://www.hellenic-art.com/armour/spartanset.htm (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	volksjager 2009-06-27 05:39 pm UTC (link)
	well I would take the 300 love as verbadum, but what s beng shown there is armour a rich greek would wear more for show . (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	dr_hermes 2009-06-27 07:38 pm UTC (link)
	As an aside, I think you can see from the Spartan style helmet where Jack Kirby derived his OMAC hairstyle. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	volksjager 2009-06-27 08:02 pm UTC (link)
	totally, the eye symbol is Spartan as well/ (Reply to this) (Parent)

arilou_skiff
2009-06-28 07:44 am UTC (link)

Err, all spartans were rich. (for a given value of "Rich") that's what comes form being a tiny upper-class ruling a large portion of slaves, serfs and conquered peoples.

The Spartiates were all upper-class, and all greek hoplites were at least middle-classed. The reason Athens was comparatively democratic even for greek city-states was because ofit's naval status: Rowers didn't have to afford the expensive armour the way more land-based militaries did, and service guarantees citizenship and all that.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	volksjager 2009-06-28 10:09 am UTC (link)
	Err, all Spartans were NOT rich. Completion of the Agogae just meant Spartan citizenship. The Athenians had slaves as well. The problem for Sparta was that they had enslaved a fellow Greek people. I recommend reading Bettany Hughes book "the Spartan way". (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

arilou_skiff
2009-06-28 10:14 am UTC (link)

Err, no. All spartiates (IE: spartan citizens) were comparatively wealthy. (It gets a bit tricky due to the way spartans owned and managed their wealth) you had to afford the big honking armour in order to be a spartiate in the first place.

And yes, athenians had slaves, but athenian citizenship was significantly broader than spartan citizenship (Athenian citizens made up something like 1/3-1/5 of the population of Athens (it varied over time), Spartiates only a few % of the total population of the spartan state.

Sparta was an oligarchy based on the land-owning elite. (because you need a certain amount of wealth to afford hoplite armour) Athens was a democracy based on the navy (because a rower does not need much in the way of equipment)

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

volksjager
2009-06-29 04:52 pm UTC (link)

well, if you'd read the book I mentioned you'd know they were not all rich. The slaves in Sparta were meant to do the most menial of tasks so that the upper classes could train, join soicial clubs and have anal sex. Successful completion of the Agogae just meant that you had a ticket to the club. IF your family owned lots of land and estates you did well. some did not , and when the signal came wore a shield that was passed down through generations. Sparta's war with Athens was fought because the Spartans broke the cardinal rule , Don't enslave your fellow greeks. The Spartans who surrendered during the Ionoian war kept their citizen ship but lost their land , thus they had to start all over.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	just_mrasaki 2009-06-27 01:58 pm UTC (link)
	...I think you took my comment entirely too seriously. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	aaron_bourque 2009-06-27 03:07 pm UTC (link)
	And as a companion piece: (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

kitty_tc_69
2009-06-27 04:00 pm UTC (link)

That last pic has got to be a teenage boy. If it's meant as a visual comparison, no it doesn't measure up.

Nor is the concept of armor practicality necessarily the same when superhuman abilities are in the mix.

Armor is always a balancing act, with mobility, expense, and utility weighed against the situations it will be used in. For example, the invention of firearms made plate armor obsolete, and body armor for soldiers of any kind wouldn't make a comeback until the invention of ballistic cloth some centuries later. Weapons and armor technologies are continually making each other obsolete, and sparking new advances in each other to keep up with the latest innovations. "More armor = good" doesn't even come close to addressing how it works in the real world.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	neuhallidae 2009-06-27 05:28 pm UTC (link)
	That last pic has got to be a teenage boy. And you're basing this on what, exactly? There's no adam's apple, we can't see the crotch, and everything else about the figure could be just as easily construed girl as it could boy. So is it the lack of huge boobs? Apparently, there's no such thing as chest binding, or, hell, just a girl who happens to be flat. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	mambalev 2009-06-27 07:32 pm UTC (link)
	Thats not a Teenage Boy, thats Fan Art/CCG Art from a Good Russian Artist. http://en.amokanet.ru/ It's Asha Greyjoy from George R. R. Martins A Song of Ice and Fire. Chainmail is not spandex and doesn't cling to the body's curves. 1st time post, longtime lurker. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	dr_hermes 2009-06-27 07:36 pm UTC (link)
	The bigger picture looks a lot like the character from the movie PRINCE CASPIAN, actually. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	neuhallidae 2009-06-27 08:40 pm UTC (link)
	Oooh, that is nice. ::bookmarks site:: Thanks! (Reply to this) (Parent)

volksjager
2009-06-27 05:45 pm UTC (link)

Well I moght comapare it to all those who whined about the lack of body armour in the in invasion of Iraq. After it finally arrived the troops didn't like the way t limited mobility and the weight factor (Thats why speacail forces don't use it). Armour in the middle ages was more for show and status the fire arm ddn;t make it obsolete as changes the way foot solders engaged and thus the need to spend the money elsewhere than in a status symbol.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

mambalev
2009-06-27 07:52 pm UTC (link)

Who told you thoose fairy tales?

Spec Ops use body armour, unless the operation demands otherwise or they simply can't be bothered.

Armour in the middle ages was not for show, seriously where are you getting this?

If Armour in the Middle Ages was for show, why did everybody who couldn't afford it loot it from the dead as soon as they could.

Also yes the firearm did make full armour obosolete.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	volksjager 2009-06-27 08:10 pm UTC (link)
	Hmmm I would recomend reading John Keagan's "The face of Battle" Agincourt section. Also "Inside Delta force" by Eric Haneny The armour was then ransomed back to the owners family. It had their cresst and Heralic arms on it so t wasn't much good to anyone else. :) I know a great deal on the subject . (Reply to this) (Parent)

vitruvian23
2009-06-27 10:22 pm UTC (link)

Armor in the middle ages was both for protection and for a status symbol, true, but it took quite a while for firearms to make heavy metal armor completely obsolete. Look up the meaning of 'armor of proof', for one thing, or consider that at least a cuirass was considered a good idea up through the time of the conquistadors, and even worn by some military officers up through the time of the civil war.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

aaron_bourque
2009-06-27 07:38 pm UTC (link)

"That last pic has got to be a teenage boy."

Nope. It's Asha Greyjoy, the pirate queen of the book series A Song Of Ice And Fire, by George R. R. Martin. Admittedly, she is described as not being very developed in the breast department, but she's still all woman.

For example, the invention of firearms made plate armor obsolete

Not quite. It's expensiveness vs. the general cheapness and ease of use of firearms sped its abandonment. However, gunpowder, first used in ship-to-ship combat by Vikings(!!!), was brought to Europe in the 1200s. Plate armor as we traditionally think of it was created in the 1400s, after innovations made by the French a century prior, and still saw much use well into the 1600s.

"More armor = good" doesn't even come close to addressing how it works in the real world.

For many reasons. However, few can argue against the sheer "Wow"-factor of a full suit of armor. Imagine an Iron Woman: less armor would be cheesecakey, sure, but more armor would be impressive.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	jlroberson 2009-06-27 11:25 pm UTC (link)
	Perhaps, but it's still "woMAN" in realistic armor. Unless those behind her are really, really butch. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	aaron_bourque 2009-06-28 12:47 am UTC (link)
	. . . I--ah . . . ::walks away:: (Reply to this) (Parent)

(Read comments) -