Okay, this has gone far enough.

[Deleted1848331User]

They offer clothing that people like to wear. I don't use them personally, but a lot of people do, so you should respect their interests and just move on to the types of mods you prefer.

[Deleted1754360User]

wow this went from a prostitute thread to a sexist thread to a history thread...wow

[AtlasS]

wow this went from a prostitute thread to a sexist thread to a history thread...wow

Its called Flowing river syndrome. water takes the easy path. the low path. typically the original post is the 'high point'(much like the lake that begins a river) and the water flows down the easiest 'low' points until it eventually gets to the ocean (is locked or everyone decides that nothing has been decided)

[Moraelin]

The medieval period is commonly considered to encompass a wider period than you suggest.

 

Which is why I'm talking about the "Dark Ages", in answer to a message talking about the "Dark Ages", not about the wider interval called the middle ages. Especially since you seem to define it as, and that's a direct quote, "The Dark Ages were a transitional period between pagan rites and the Roman conversion" then that would be the even narrower definition of "Dark Ages" that limits it to the migration period. Henry's cod-piece is over 800 years too late to be relevant for that interval.

 

Incidentally, it still is irrelevant even for the wider middle ages, as it's clearly outside it and well in the Renaissance.

 

But, basically, what I'm saying is that the Middle Ages were not some uniform interval where nothing changed. One can't really mix and match pre-Carolingian pagan times, renaissance cod-pieces, and Chaucer into one big pot as if it's all some non-descript middle-ages. Things that flew in one time, didn't fly in other times, and often there's a very narrow interval when they flew at all.

 

As for these other quibbles, I expected as much, so you don't have to believe me: regarding codpieces: this and this and you forgot the shoes.

 

And if you've read your own links, they confirm the centuries I gave. In fact, the second link even says that they stayed just a flat triangle until Henry VIII mistook that for a fashion. Anne Boleyn mentioned in that story was queen between 1533 and 1536, which gives a very narrow interval for when the bulging codpiece fashion started. It's in the 16'th century. It also dies out by the end of the 16'th century.

 

Shoes too, actually those pointy huge shoes only start in the 12'th century at all, and the fad dies out in the 13'th century. Up to this point, the historical examples were at most 50% longer than the foot, but most of them were barely 10% longer than the foot. There's also no mention of any sexual meaning at this point, and really, putting a 1-2 inch peak on a shoes is hardly the phallic symbol. Then the fad went away, or rather moved eastward, until they got reintroduced in the West again by the late 14'th century and it dies out in the 15'th century again, replaced by the next fad, the blunt and wide shoes. Past that, they only exist in tall tales about shoes so big they have to be tied to the knees, but always in some other land than the story is told, and pretty much just showing how an urban legend gets taller with each retelling. The only allegations of there being anything phallic about them comes from the church's trying to ridicule them as that, in this second coming of the fad, but basically nobody else seems to make that association.

 

That there were internal complaints of corruption does nothing to erase the facts of the corruption of the papacy.

 

Never said they erase anything. I mentioned those internal letters as evidence that yep, you're right about that.

 

I chose Chaucer because he's a well-known early witness to his times at a time when there are scant other well-known writings in that vein. The Renaissance coincided with and perhaps led to the dawn of the Protestant and later the Puritan movements which led to 'covering up'.

 

Well, but that's just the thing. Even writing about that kind of thing was a relatively new thing. If you look at earlier times, he's not that far after the likes of Chretien de Troyes and others who were hyping the non-sexual courtly love ideal, knightly virtue, and all that. Roll the time even more and you'd find an age where even queens could have to prove their innocence by a trial by fire at a mere accusation of infidelity, e.g., Emma of Normandy.

 

I forgot to mention that bare breasts were another vogue, probably due to ease of breast feeding.

 

I don't recall many bare-breasted women in medieval tapestries and such. The first bare-breast gowns worn in public seem to have been introduced by the mid-15'th century by a mistress of the french king, and it kinda spread from there, but never really got outside of France or nobility at that point. It only got mass appeal in the 16'th century. Again we're talking something borderline renaissance, rather than something that was common or acceptable in most of the middle ages.

 

 

The Beltane fires were celebrated by having sex with anyone you met at the bonfire, in hopes to please the Gods of fertility. And the ages of the revelers is really not that relevant to my beef with the thread, which is to quit claiming you want historically accurate clothing when that's not at all the case.

 

The Beltaine seems to only have any actual sexual component in the modern pseudo-ancient BS that is Wicca. I'm not aware of any historical text which makes such a claim of random sex, but I'm willing to be enlightened.

 

In fact, we don't even know much about the actual ancient druidic rituals, because those didn't write them down, and we at best have second hand accounts from their detractors. The Romans went at great length to wipe out the religion and culture of the conquered celts, starting with the druids who were the lore and history keepers. So once you villify them and take them out, you have essentially wiped out those people's culture and can mould them into proper Romans. Even then, the accusation that contemporary Romans made against the druids about Beltaine was IIRC that they practiced human sacrifice there, not that they screwed around randomly. Burning people alive was pretty much the standard accusation that the Romans had against the celtic religion, and, well, in a nutshell that's what was supposedly with the big bonfires at Beltaine.

 

And, honestly, dunno about you, but I certainly wouldn't be in a mood for some jolly good sex after seeing someone end their life screaming in agony atop some burning wood.

[myrmaad]

It seems I mixed up Sir James George Frazer and Marion Bradley there. Still there is the argument reiterated by Dan Brown and originally put forth by Margot Adler of the suppression of goddess worship and sacred sex by the church.

 

Christian domination did coincide with the Romanization of Western Europe, but you cannot deny that people still believed in fairies, spirits, and all sorts of pagan relics, even now we celebrate Christmas with a Christmas "Tree". That conversion took a very long time. Henry's codpiece may have been the height of the fad, but even when they were leather, they were often stuffed, as one of those links corroborated. My original information is not available on the web, or if it is I'm not in the mood to go track it down. There's enough information here for people to do their own research if so inclined. They could start here.

 

I never mentioned exact dates. You seem to be hell bent on nitpickery.

 

The fact is most people on this thread have never even considered that what they imagine Medieval dress is more like Victorian attire, or Elizabethan at best, which is pretty late considering the Medieval period (meaning 5th to the 15th century) to be prior to the Enlightenment which began in about the mid 1600s.

 

I've said my piece, and this is not the place to continue this debate I suppose. It seems to be veering into a religious topic.

[7vincent7black7]

My previous post, I just read again, I was out of line. I had read the entire thread in one sitting and I suppose that influenced my state of opinion. I understand what I was thinking at the time. But the things and the ideals I had posted were quite pretentious and rude. I am not usually like that as I spend a lot of time in forums like insidetwoworlds.com where I ahve gotten used to everyone talking things out, yelling abit, then making up and buying eachother online coffee, metaphorically speaking of course. So I sincerely apologise for being like that.

 

Well, my post was supposed to clarify what I assumed was the first poster's idea of proper mods before I started asking about the topic and trying to make it fit the kind of message she would have viewed as acceptable as I had seen she was rather offended. It ended with it being a close-minded essay on the meagre details that I understood about the aspects that appealed to those who used these mods and I was only thinking of one side of the ideals.

 

All in all however I find this thread interesting as I have learned some things about history that I did not know. tbh, I kinda have always preferred victorian styles over the other medieval ones that have seemed kind of bland to me in comparison, my thoughts being that of oblivion's attempts of vibrancy in clothing being the base colors compared to some of what I have seen in the past when researching the victorian era. Limited as my knowledge was I found the style to be rather creative and flamboyant in it's own right. That is just my opinion though in regards to the differences they are speaking of.

 

Edit: actually I like the old gothic style was well where it was a bit dark and, well, serious for lack of a better term. From what I can remember it was a style adopted by the church for a very long time and was quite the opposite of what the gothic style is seen as today. I always wondered what it would be like if someone could sort of integrate these styles into the culture and architecture of oblivion. Not both, I mean chose one era or another and create a whole new mood to experience. The gothic era would be nice with a more forboding undertone of emotions that would go strongly with the main quest and the fighting against mehrunes dagon which is pretty much like the cyrodiilic devil himself.

Edited July 27, 2011 by 7vincent7black7

[myrmaad]

In any event, surely Oblivion is more sword & sorcery than 'medieval', so tin bikinis and big effing swords are entirely acceptable, being part of the genre's tradition. :biggrin:

 

I would love to make this my signature.

[bben46]

@Moraelin

One can't really mix and match pre-Carolingian pagan times, renaissance cod-pieces, and Chaucer into one big pot as if it's all some non-descript middle-ages.

 

Sure you can - we just did. :tongue:

 

The game isn't really set in either the 'Dark ages' 'middle ages' or any actual age in history as it is a fantasy set on some non historical imaginary world that has only a token resemblance to any real historical era. And that makes any apparel style you prefer appropriate to your game.. Most people prefer something similar to what they imagine was worn in their own concept of 'pre Renaissance middle ages', but some like their outfits a little more fantasy or even a bit modern. So if you think pointy shoes and codpieces fit go for it. :rolleyes:

 

Basically - anything goes. :thumbsup:

[MarkInMKUK]

I'm a "realism" junkie ... so I guess I need to tell myself "This is REALLY a fantasy world populated by big-chested women in tiny mesh bikinis which protect against arrows, and who can stop a charging ogre with nary a hair out of place" ... or just keep quiet :confused:

 

Well, you can all hope I manage it, anyway :)

Edited July 27, 2011 by MarkInMKUK

[ziitch]

Then again if you look at Daggerfall you'll find that skimpy clothes and nudity actually fits into the series, in a sense...