lobelia321: (shahrukh)
[personal profile] lobelia321
Thanks to [livejournal.com profile] orlisbunny, I found this pic. It seems that my Malta-palpitations have not faded after all.



And what about those sandals, eh?



You can't see it?

Try this: http://www.geocities.com/lobelia40/banabloom.txt

(no subject)

Date: 2003-09-21 02:33 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] prairiedaun.livejournal.com
Thigh! Lovely, lovely thigh.

Thanks for this.

(no subject)

Date: 2003-09-21 04:56 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] yellow-oranges.livejournal.com
THIGHS!

*dies*

(no subject)

Date: 2003-09-21 05:03 pm (UTC)
msilverstar: (orlando)
From: [personal profile] msilverstar
Am I a total dweeb to admit that I'm more interested in the fact that the armor and shields look reasonably authentic? Well, then, I'm a dweeb.

(no subject)

Date: 2003-09-21 05:25 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cherry-glitter.livejournal.com
knees! curls! knees!

(no subject)

Date: 2003-09-22 12:46 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ios-pillow-book.livejournal.com
*has a sudden heart attack*

This is too much for a Monday morning. Really. And remembering that there was no such thing as underwear in antiquity isn't very helpful in this context. Not at all.

*reaches for her smelling salts*

(no subject)

Date: 2003-09-22 08:44 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] lobelia321.livejournal.com
Oh and I was thinking that they looked quite cheesy and *un*-authentic!!

(no subject)

Date: 2003-09-22 08:47 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] lobelia321.livejournal.com
What? No jockstraps or boxers in antiquity? Surely some sort of bollocks wrap-around?

(no subject)

Date: 2003-09-22 01:00 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ios-pillow-book.livejournal.com
Nope. Starts quoting from a most informative, or should I say revealing, article my lovely not!muse once sent me for fic research:

"In short, (we) may become more open to the idea that Greek men, who are still widely considered to be the founders of the European tradition of civilisation, were nevertheless content to go about in their ordinary lives wearing a minimum of clothing and a coating of perfumed oil."

...

"There is no suggestion of a tunic always being worn underneath, and one becomes accustomed to seeing a large part of the naked male torso. The material was kept in place without the aid of pins or a belt, and practical experience with reproductions indicates that it must have required frequent adjustment in the course of a day. There is no doubt that sudden, involuntary movement would have caused the himation to slip and expose more of the body."

...

"Sometimes a short tunic, a chiton or chitoniskos, was worn underneath the chlamys ... but it clearly did not have to be. In fact, this tunic only rarely appears as the sole garment for mortal men and is most commonly seen underneath body-armour, when it was worn presumably for extra comfort."

So no boxers. No wrap-arounds. Just free-flowing tunics, if they wore something at all. *smiiiiiiles*

(no subject)

Date: 2003-09-22 01:44 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] lobelia321.livejournal.com
Himation! Chitoniskos!

*has wordgasm*

Profile

lobelia321: (Default)
Lobelia the adverbially eclectic

January 2026

S M T W T F S
    1 23
4 5 678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags