HOME | DD
Niconoff — Astrid
Published: 2015-01-21 22:45:21 +0000 UTC; Views: 38544; Favourites: 1660; Downloads: 1032
Redirect to original
Description
ArtStation www.artstation.com/artwork/ast…Related content
Comments: 51
looks like you need to learn some anatomy
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Cool design on her face, the tatoos and hairstyle is an interesting balance of forms and colours. The pink and the blue in very earthy tones.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
That's some incredibly impractical armour she's got there.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
There's plenty of Historical evidence of most most warriors from Ancient time were barely dressed or even Naked for the Sake of Movility . The lady depicted in this Picture looks like a Pict , who were notorius for going to battle totally naked just with body painting , something common in Celtic culture. So this is in fact , a very historical accurate depiction of a female warrior of those times.
Real Historical Depiction of a Pict female Warrior:
www.learnnc.org/lp/media/uploa…
Celtic warriors:
media.irishcentral.com/images/…
img.photobucket.com/albums/v48…
Some other Archaic cultures:
img832.imageshack.us/img832/92…
www.salimbeti.com/micenei/imag…
i1.ifrm.com/2279/116/upload/p3…
Try to document Yourself a bit on History before talking.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
So much wrong with this. Okay, where shall I start? For starters, the majority of this comment, with the exception of one part that is designated specifically, is aimed at EduardoHerrera.
To spare you the upcoming wall of text, the short and narrow of it is - no, regardless of whether it may or may not have been done, not wearing armour in battle is significantly less practical than wearing armour in battle and that's a fact. That said, the realism of it doesn't really matter and having this argument is pointless. Fact is, this is fantasy, fact is, creators of fantastical art will take fantastical artistic liberties in the content they make. To sell copies, to garner attention, to conform to conventions or seem new and revolutionary. Begrudging someone for not making a realistic or historically accurate character or suit of armour or clothing in a fantastical way, without a specified fantastical world is ridiculous, more to it, it's pointless. Let the man draw what he likes, end of story. There is nothing even remotely practical or realistic about this character, but I'm going to assume that that was the point.
AndtiShipper, it is innacurate. I'm pretty sure that the only thing historically accurate here is that knife. But that's irrelevant.
That's the gist of it, the rest is more in-depth for if you want to know some of the details.
Okay, first the assumption that they fought naked, no, they didn't. SOME of the Barbarian tribes had SOME people that SOMETIMES fought naked/half naked, though, this was only because they were under the effects of various narcotics that made them think that they're invincible. No sober or sane man would go to battle naked if he had the choice. The primary reason for why people would go in to battle not wearing armour, beyond being in a drugged-up murder frenzy, is simple poverty. A lot of people simply couldn't afford armour, so they went in to battle with the next best thing - usually layered clothing, or in places where layering clothing wasn't viable(see overwhelming heat), just regular clothing.
First and foremost, I'd ask for some dating and origin on these drawings, as many of them seem to be done in a Renaissance style, where it was customary for people to be drawn naked, regardless of their profession or situation. I say Renaissance as in Classical Antiquity it was not terribly common(at least, among the Greeks) to depict naked females without justification, men, on the other hand, tended to only be depicted naked(unless it was some sort of special instance). That said, I'm pretty sure that the first image, featuring a naked female, is a depiction of Boudica, she's a very unique character in this regard. Never mind the overly complex designs of the tattoos/warpaint.
Moving to the image of the "Celts circa 1st century BC/AD", notice how they don't seem to be particularly rich and have shields, and wear pants and also note the man in the back wearing upper-body clothes. Again, the only people that went in to battle unclothed were the drugged, crazy and really poor. In reference to the Picts, it's notable to mention that one should always separate between facts and fiction. The Picts were notorious for painting themselves blue and wearing no clothing to combat not because all of them did it, but because a few of them did it and it was the most striking image on the field that day. The legends and stories went around, got embellished and ended up with what we have today - half-truths born of myth and legend.
Our lady, despite what you said, is most certainly not a Pict. For one, "Astrid" is not a Pictish name, furthermore, if you actually observe her gear, it's not very ancient. The massive fuck-off paddle of a sword, which the strongest of men couldn't wield on their best day, rather less her, is not something that you'd find in Pictish society, even assuming that it's iron(which it couldn't be, it'd bet too soft considering the size), it just doesn't float. In addition, I've never actually seen a Pictish sword with fuller, this sword has one massive ass fuller(the groove going down the spine of the blade), and neither is the style of her fur gloves and boots - which, by the way, wouldn't protect jack shit - after all, the Heels weren't really a thing until the late 16th century.
The fact is, armour doesn't restrict movement significantly to discarded by choice. You can, pretty much, do Yoga in Lorica Segmentata(a form of banded-plate armour the Romans used from the late 1st century AD onward), the heaviest the Picts could get, if they were rich and lucky enough, was a shirt of iron mail. Trust me, if she could, she would.
To go back to the drawings, notice how in all of the other ones, the people are either from places that are very hot, have massive shields or are posing? The one guy that doesn't have a massive fuck-off shield doesn't seem like combat personel, he's probably some sort of engineer/reserve. Furthermore, if you look at their armour, particularly the shin-guards, you might notice that these people probably use some pretty big, fuck-off shields to battle(a common theme in cultures that are very fond of phalanx-like formations are that the shins get armoured first, and then everything else.
Most importantly, however, this is in direct reference to genuine articles and depictions from history, one should always take information with a pinch of salt. The men and women of antiquity were the same as you and I, they were just as prone to taking artistic liberties and making embellishments, whether it was to sell books, pots or plates, make up good stories or spread legends.
On to your deliberation of how this "armour" makes sense - in short, no. Depending on the gear you are using, your arms should be protected at all times. Even when using two handed weapons, historically, the guard of the weapon itself as well as the stances and moves you make will protect both your body and arms - provided you're a competent fighter, of course(which, considering the size of that weapon, not likely), if you're using a shield, you'll always be covered(again, assuming that you know what you're doing, and a soldier aught to). The legs are a different story, the shins in particular, can be more difficult to protect. Now, in the ancient world, a world predominated by really big shields to offset the lack of readily available and good body-armour, this was usually done by wearing metal grieves - which were, for the time, practically indestructible. A Greek spearman, for instance, only really needed his shield, spear, sword(or other short weapon), helmet and grieves. He could have went without body-protection(as many of the very poor ones did), the shield would have been large enough to protect his entire body and upper legs, and the only bits sticking out(his head and forelegs) would be protected by his helmet and grieves. However, still, you'll notice that people still preferred to wear as much armour as they could. Why? Because given the choice between dying from that one lucky blow that makes it between the gaps in the formation, and an a relatively small amount of extra weight and not, 99% of humans would chose the latter option.
Fact is, however, in the end, wearing more armour is always better, and anyone that could, in ancient times, afford body-armour could afford to have body armour that fit them very well. The fact is, body armour doesn't restrict you enough to discard.
Ehhh....Problem regarding your Roman mural: Those are gladiators, gladiators weren't typically equipped for maximum practicality, they were equipped for showmanship, however still, note that they're actually wearing protection in the places that they need it most(unlike our fair damsel here, that is wearing a sum total of 0 protective gear). AntiShipper is right, given what she's wearing, she would be better off naked - for one, those metal rings on her thong would cause significant chafing, and her nipple-caps would only serve toward freezing her nipples off. Furthermore, if we were to replace her bikini and fashionista boots and gloves with something more appropriate for her type of weapon(actually, there is nothing appropriate for her actual weapon. Unless she's superhuman, she'd be lucky to be able to drag that thing around, and if she somehow managed to swing it, that thing would either fly out of her hands, or pull her off her feet, and on her face, and if you tied it to her hands, then it'd just dislocate her arms. In short, that weapon's impossible to properly use unless you're some sort of Icelandic strongman). Considering the two handed sword, she should protect, at the very least, her dominant arm and left leg(assuming that she's right handed). In short, she's not wearing any armour what so ever, and that sword, assuming that she could lift it, would break her.
To put it in simply, you're wrong.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
HOLY SHIT! , I wont even bother to Read such Text wall becasue I know nobody will do XDDD So you did a pointless effort. Resume a bit more next time (Like a LOT more) .
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hence why I included a sumary at the top.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
dude, i said it was impractical, not inaccurate. calm your tits.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Its not impractical if real warriors used the same attire.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
just because real warriors fought in next to nothing it doesn't make it any less impractical
there's a number of reasons why people would fight naked, but designing armour that only covers the genitals and breasts is about as as useful as designing a gun that shoots backwards. people wear armour to protect themselves, people go without for greater mobility. if you're gonna wear armour, make sure it does it job but if you're gonna wear something like this you're better off without it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
If you go for Light or No-armor , cover just your genitals , shins and forearms as presented in this picture is the way to go . Your forearms are exposed when you attack with your weapon and your shins are difficult to protect due their low position . Protect those points allows you to focus properly on the attack while your Torso is protected behind you weapon and arms specially is you are weilding a weapon so large as presented here.
And for covering the genitals , well , they are sensitive , even covering them with a small piece of leather makes you feel more Safe , that and for Hygienic reasons .
If you want examples you have the Roman gladiators . Their attires were based on the warriors that the roman legions fought wordwide , as you can see they focused the protection just in the points mentioned : Shins , forearms , and genital cover . Helmets were optional , and sometimes they just covered one Arm , the attacking one.
Real roman Mural:
portalhistoria.files.wordpress…
Historical representation:
i40.servimg.com/u/f40/15/10/00…
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
jesus christ, you're going way too in-depth with this
last time i ever make a joke on deviantart.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
it's about mobility, not protection xD
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That mobility's gonna help her a lot when she gets cut from shoulder to groin.
She'd be better off in leather and linen if mobility was the goal.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Well, actually, she could pull it off in full-plate just fine. It's not mobility that's the question, it's her own personal endurance. Plate weighs more than skivvies, it's going to tire you out much faster...but...not as fast as some people will have you believe. I've seen people sprint and do rolls in full suits of gothic plate armour, and that shit wasn't a rarity, it was expected of any suit of armour to be articulate enough to allow a soldier to fight at maximal effectiveness.
Either way, it's irrelevant, I don't really have any complaints....well, except for her left leg, which looks deformed as fuck.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Your right, but just enjoy the art. If it was a cosplay chick you wouldn't have to say anything
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I probably still would have.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
how does she handle that sword? it looks way too huge for her ;o
I like your style of painting
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Really? Of all the unrealistic, unpractical things it's the size of the sword you can't believe? xD
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
hahaha yea, the size of sword was most disturbing XDDD
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I love this Grown and Sexy Badass version of Astrid! maybe we see versions of Elsa, Mulan and Merinda in the future. Keep it up and Godspeed all the way!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
And don't forget to add Hiccup, Stormfly, and Toothless
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
because when the sword slashes or the arrow fires, her breasts will defend her against anything 3x better than armour!: P
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Very appealing, I love small glimpse of "3d effect".
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
