body text
Um sweaty historical accuracy is when there are giant firebreathing dragons and ice zombies but also there is a lot of rape in it. Super realistic :so-true:
Medieval Europe had dragons but not black people, it's basic history sweetie :very-smart:
A lot of these poor fools are going to be in for a shock when they find out there were black people in Ancient Rome.
They probably weren't garishly colored, but they definitely were bright
I've seen as much before. Consider the fact that all we have left is the base paint, none of the detailing or outer coats. We also know from surviving mosaics or painted interiors they didn't use color the way this image suggests.
It's difficult to tell what they'd have actually looked like as a finished result. Like the other poster said, what we have are traces of base coat pigment, and to speak from a modern sculpting/painting standpoint one often needs to use too bright colors in the lower layers to get the correct color in the upper layers.
I think what the final result would look like would probably depend on where a statue was going to be displayed: the Romans had a very limited toolkit to work with so far as paints went, and the ones that would hold up to outside weather were kind of shitty and ill-suited to fine detail work, so a statue displayed in a square would probably have less detailed and realistic paint work because it just wasn't possible and it would probably have to be regularly touched up or repainted anyways. A statue displayed inside may very well have been genuinely lifelike, because judging by the comparatively small number of true paintings that have survived from that era they had both the technical skill and the materials to do so.
That means an outdoor statue may well have looked like that picture, while a statue in a villa may have looked more like one of those really uncanny wax sculptures.
Why go that far? Saint maurice patron of the holy roman empire is depicted as black in catholic iconografy.
Yep. Also there are late medieval paintings that show black people living in Europe that aren't just like a "blackface style." They are pretty clearly African based on the facial features, hair etc.
Or remind them that one of the people shot in the Boston Massacre, and it is depicted in the most famous contemporary image of it, was a black dude.
What is also interesting is there is a medieval european painting of a battle between the Christian Ethiopians and Muslims and they depict the Ethiopian soldiers as wearing European style armor. Which was probably not the case irl. But it gets the point across to the ignorant which side to cheer for if you were a European Christian.
or for that matter Mansa Munsa handing out gold baubles to dab during a continental tour.
This is what caused racism
Remember the dude who claimed that Assassin's Creed Oddessy's portrayal of Ancient Greece was historically inaccurate because the game had gay people in it?
My favorite counter-argument to people who pretend gay shit is new is the Pompeii graffiti they unearthed that was like "farewell to wondrous femininity, from now on my penis will only go into men's bottoms."
My hair isn't purple it's Tyrian Scarlet I say as I don my Praetonian cloak. Romulus and Remus didn't suck wolf tits so you could make Rome gay. We were furries. Straight. Furries.
Who could have known that the culture that really enjoyed shirtless oil wrestling might not be super straight?
See I had the same reaction but in reverse to the original God of War over a decade earlier
Why was Kratos having sex with women all the time? He should have been having gay sex, that would have been historically accurate
Actually every culture in ancient society had blue haired women, and they were all taught to be swordsmasters.
Which sucks cause if you do a really good job of depicting historal accuracy you get Robert Eggers' films and they're my favorite. That requires real work and passion about the subject and a desire to make a film that feels like a window to the past through stylistic choices as well as set dressingz costumes and all that. He can get you into the mindset of a place in time thsr just depicting events where historical figures are just modern dudes with British accents to stay relatable to a modern audience (go back just 50 years and you'll have a hard time understanding people's mindsets let alone 500 or whatever). It takes more effort from both the filmmakers and the audience but you come out of it with a pretty decent idea of the time being depicted.
"historical accuracy" is some weird Viking fantasy to these people.
I get my political ideology from Amon Amarth album covers
Caring about the historical accuracy of a fantasy world, this is why it has no black people.
The few episodes of rings of power I saw I can recall they did it super clumsily. They just kinda had a couple black proto Hobbits amidst an entire white village and this is when people traveled at the speed of horse and the world had been literally sundered by war semi recently (literally destroyed half the continent). Tolkien's whole point for even starting the stories however was in a big part to shoe how different people culturally criss crossing over time would help his made up languages make more sense, so there are sorta ways to do that stuff but make it part of the story.
Like, if they had followed Tolkien, the reason dudes from the east and south were sending troops to help sauron in LOTR was cause numenoreans who sauron had convinced to worship Morgoth and be generally evil had colonized those regions during the second age. That angle would have made a really nice sub plot and could carry anti colonial and anti racist themes that can easily be drawn out from Tolkien's writings. So yeah, I feel there it was done very haphazardly and could have been done with some 'realism' to the fake world but also directly deal with those issues instead of just sprinkling in diverse casting.
OR, the hobbits could just be dark because that's just their color morph
genetics don't have to work realistically in a fantasy world, especially for a non-human species that doesn't actually exist
Hobbits are a human species. And Tolkien isn't DnD or whatever. Just kinda having random things around Cuz It's Fantasy is an excuse to be lazy and will come off that way when adapting his work. He already put in the effort, all you have to do is read the books.
The events of Lord of the Rings actually took place far in the past of our own world. As stupid as that sounds, it was the author's intent I guess. It doesn't really make archaeological sense but :shrug-outta-hecks:
Eh, if you take it at face value there wouldn't be an archeological record. The original "framing tale" (I guess) of all of the Tolkien Legendarium was that some Anglo-Saxon sailor washed up on Tol Eressea, learned Elvish from the locals, and translated the books he found there, and then Tolkien got hold of those and translated them into Modern English. "Lost Lands" were fertile ground for fantasy works at a time when plate tectonics weren't really understood. The idea is that the part of Middle Earth that the Noldor live in in the Second and Third Ages is gone or destroyed for this or that reason, like Beleriand before it. Lovecraft, Howard, and Smith did this kind of thing too with their constant references to each other, though Lovecraft was at least aware of the concept of continental drift.
