r/HistoryMemes is having a civil war (again), celebrating 10 million subscribers! Support the Empires of Britain or France by flairing your post correctly. [For more information, check out the pinned post in the sub.](https://new.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/1cg09hf/the_great_historymemes_civil_war_2_10_million/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HistoryMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm not an artist and I am quite frankly often an idiot but goddamn sculpture blows my mind. I understand painting on some level even though I can't draw anything worth shit, the process makes sense and I respect the talent.
Sculpture like the one on the left is just black magic to me. Some guy 2,000 years ago carves an incredible likeness out of rock, and then you look at the guys haircut and think "eh, good looking bloke, he'd probably still look good by todays standards."
So my question is how come sculptures could carve incredible looking realistic figures out of goddamn rock and nail minute detail down to muscle definition, but up until a certain period paintings of humans quite frankly didn't match the level of realism? Where sculptors just gigachads at art?
>Sculpture like the one on the left is just black magic to me
Take a look at [this one](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/Veiled_virgin.jpg)
I was hoping it was [this statue](https://www.google.com/search?q=nathan+bedford+forrest+statue+face&client=ms-android-ee-uk-revc&sca_esv=e7989b0919315ea7&sca_upv=1&udm=2&biw=384&bih=729&sxsrf=ADLYWILqKhN0Zi9kRjZwx24vos7FEnkJUA%3A1714895650690&ei=Ijs3ZoLZKdjQhbIP6PqPyAg&oq=nathan+bedford+forrest+statue+face&gs_lp=EhNtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1zZXJwIiJuYXRoYW4gYmVkZm9yZCBmb3JyZXN0IHN0YXR1ZSBmYWNlMgUQABiABDIIEAAYgAQYogRI4yhQxA9YoydwBHgAkAEBmAHyAaABnwmqAQUxLjcuMbgBA8gBAPgBAZgCDKACiAjCAgQQIxgnwgIKEAAYgAQYQxiKBcICBxAjGLACGCfCAgcQABiABBgNmAMAiAYBkgcDNC44oAepHQ&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-serp#vhid=pInk2_WMXofqWM&vssid=mosaic), which gives its subject all the respect he deserves
Edit: closer image of the face
Depends on the version of the myth. In early versions it's consenting, or Zeus weds Persephone to Hades without her consent (as was the tradition), and he was just taking his bride to their new home. One of the most interesting aspects is that despite Hades' possible kidnapping of her (raptus in Latin, which is often mistranslated as rape), he does not force himself upon her and instead treats her as an equal (which was extremely rare in that time period)
Something interesting though is that sculpture seems to be more realistic earlier in history than paintings or other flat graphic arts are. It is probably because you can more easily see something 3D than to make the transition from 3D to 2D and add shadows and all that.
For example I like these [paleolithic bison sculptures](https://old.reddit.com/r/ArtefactPorn/comments/75w32v/14000_years_old_bisons_sculptures_found_in_le_tuc/).
It is fairly interesting to view sculpture and paintings side by side. Everyone knows the typical Egyptian style of painting everyone from the side. [This](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Ffrn5891c9ifc1.jpeg) is a wooden statue from the Old Kingdom. Moving on to the Mochica, you have paintings which look like [this](https://images1.novica.net/pictures/4/p306932_2.jpg) and sculpture which looks like [this](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Ffifc4s7ongyc1.jpeg).
I think it ultimately came down to the skill of the sculptor. These works would have taken a very long time to make, I always thought that the larger works would've taken many years to complete, possibly to the extent that a single sculpture could have been an artist's life's work.
As for why it declined, possibly the decline of larger civilizations led to there being fewer opportunity for these works to be sponsored, or perhaps there was some change in the culture or style that caused them to fall out of fashion.
One thing that I find to be very sad is how few examples of Roman paintings have been preserved, despite how widely it was practised. The same goes for the music, to my knowledge we know almost nothing of what instruments they would've used, or what songs they created.
The wealth of the sponsor and the number of super wealthy sponsors is extremly underrated reason behind the quality of work. By Roman standards the middle ages were an era of wealth equality where the king was only a few times richer than a noble who in turn was only a few times richer than a peasant. That means there were many more sponsors but they were much poorer on average. A Roman land owner could have been a million times richer then a slave he owned and so he could afford some pretty spectacular art. After the rise of unified monarchies in Europe in 15th century the wealthy owners were once again more common and so they comissioned expensive stuff in late gothic or renaissance styles.
I heard a great analogy in the context of Byzantine art being less realistic than 500ish years ago. Likewise, someone from the future could look at our art today and say that all these anime drawings were inferior to paintings 300 years ago simply because they are less photo realistic, ignoring any other defining qualities of artwork. All art is subjective, clearly people at the time have value placed on different types. Yes there is likely to be some degree of a loss of talent compared to the height of the Roman empire, but it's a lot to assume that all artistic changes derive from that.
It’s weird to see like 1980s manga compared to now in terms of realism and anatomy. Part of it I think is that there were more self-taught ones than professionals at one point.
I think the two big pieces of information you are missing relate to how painting works as a technology.
The first piece is that making 2d images that are colorfast, allow for fine details, and last hundreds of years is difficult.
Paint is a technology. Oil paint didn’t exist until 7th century, and the type of oil paint you see in Renaissance paintings wasn’t invented until the 15th century. Before that, you see a lot of tempura(eggs pretty much), encaustic(wax), etc that don’t hold up as well, and it’s much harder to do transparent glazes and blend and rework, etc.
To put this in perspective, go out in your yard right now and try to make a painting that will last a hundred years even. It would be much easier for you to make a nice wood or stone carving with what you find out there than it would be to find drawing or painting materials even just paper or canvas that will survive a long time. You’re simply not going to “invent” modern paint in your backyard the same way you could “invent” decent stone carving.
The second piece you’re missing is the techniques and conceptual work that makes drawing and painting realistic. Perspective, anatomy, etc. are much more counterintuitive to apply to a 2d plane than they are in 3D. Even working from a live model, the ability to use a drawing implement or paint to make something on a 2D plane that looks like what you see requires a lot of leaps of logic that might seem simple to us, but would be terribly complicated to figure out if you’ve never seen it.
A good comparison might me that it’s probably a lot easier for a young child to make a piece of play-doh look like a dog or a person than it is for them to make that work on paper. You’ll often see them use little stick lines for arms, a weirdly proportioned circle for a head, dots for eyes, etc. in a drawing. Then you give them play doh and the idea that arms and legs have thickness is just inherent to the medium, they get that the head needs to be bigger or smaller and a certain shape, eyes are balls stuck on there, etc.
So that’s it in a nutshell. One, it’s hard to make 2d images out a material that will last a long time, so people probably made good stuff that didn’t hold up very well because it’s made of wax or whatever, and two, it takes some study and learning to conceptualize that you even *can* make a 2D image that resembles the 3D world, much less execute.
And that’s not to say that sculpture is an inferior or simpler art form or something. Obviously sculpture has its own challenges in the same way and it’s impressive in its own right that so many great sculptures and their fine details have withstood the test of time so we can appreciate them today.
>but up until a certain period paintings of humans quite frankly didn't match the level of realism?
Actual paintings from periods when those sculptures were maid are realistic. If you go to Pompeii, the paintings you will find there are. But the rest of them didn't survive as well as sculptures. After the fall of Rome, the techniques were not preserved. Up until the Renesance, both paintings and sculptures in western Europe were worse than during Roman times.
The actual answer is that sculptures are 3D recreations of 3D objects while paintings are 2D recreations of 3D objects. Roman sculptures were far superior to their drawings. The absolute worst part about older paintings was the perspective and trying to create the illusion of depth on a flat surface, that isn't much of an issue with sculpture.
I remember in school I took 3D rendering for animation while also taking perspective drawing as a backup plan because I was afraid the 3D rendering was going to be really counterintuitive and mathy and I'd never be able to figure it out. Turns out I had it precisely the wrong way 'round.
> Up until the Renesance, both paintings and sculptures in western Europe were worse than during Roman times.
Sculptures became more realistic earlier than paintings. Most paintings were either murals or miniatures in the W. Euro. Middle Ages.
Statues of Saints, the Christ or Mary did have much more realism to them than the often flat and not very proportionate paintings.
I always come back to this quote when I look at any amazing statues/carvings:
“The sculpture is already complete within the marble block, before I start my work. It is already there, I just have to chisel away the superfluous material.” ~Michelangelo
Seeing his work in person as well as Caravaggio and so many of the other greats, including some amazing Greek works… just fuckin dumbfounded.
I couldn’t carve a mediocre looking stick starting with a cylinder…
Perhaps it's down to the resources available at the time? For sculptures, I'd imagine all you would need would be a chunk of marble, a hammer, and a chisel.
Compare that with painting. It seems a lot more complex finding the ingredients and mixing colors to create the appropriate color. Not to mention the various brushes needed. It has to be way more difficult creating a realistic painting when you have only a handful of colors and brushes to choose from.
The Fayum mummy portraits go back as far as almost 3000 years ago. Painting and sculpture don't have some sort of one up on each other at any one time it just depends on what you are looking at.
Romans did make some decently realistic paintings but your point stands. It comes down to the dimensions. A painter needs to utilize an intensely conplicated and varied set of techniques and tricks to create the illusion of a realistic 3D figure on a 2D surface. A sculptor can just sculpt their subject without concerning themselves with light and shadow and their impacts on color, perspective, etc. It may sound straightforward but these painting techniques took many generations of artistic innovation to develop into "realistic" portrayals.
If I had to guess, we probably had a lot more experience carving stone than we did painting.
Also possible we started carving wood that didn't survive and that translated into stonework once we got tolls that could do that. But that's a particularly crackpot theory.
It's also probably a case of what's survived, easier for stone to last than paintings. In fact afaik a lot of greaco-roman sculptures used to be painted
Also, it's over such a long period of time, we developed a lot of new tools and techniques across that time. Like, a lot of super ancient art is fairly minimalist, afaik a lot of the super good famous paintings and sculptures are from the same era or at least close enough.
Keep in mind, as interesting as it is I know jack shit about art history. This is all baseless speculation from my 3:30 am brain
They absolutely could, they just didn't want to draw in a realistic style. It's like looking at Picasso's paintings and asking why he wasn't capable of painting well.
So this is why Centurii-chan is depicted as not-so-closet horny for the Celts: all Romans secretly were.
Edit: Also, I can't unseen the right picture as a depiction of Ancient British Pops from Regular Show.
It is an uncomfortable truth, but quite a lot of people even into the modern day fetishize people they consider "less civilized" for the "raw, primal, sexual allure" purely due to the exoticism.
Without getting too controversial, just think of how many modern Harlequin romance books are written about sexy shirtless Scottish Highlanders, for example.
Kinda unrelated, but all these greco Roman statues are meant to show their subjects in an *idealized* form, called idealism.
Not in a realistic form, or realism.
That is a good comment.
But this is true just if we deny the possibility that we are living in a stage scenary, like pets, where all past/history was created (or adapted) just for making us believing in it and accepting a non perfect life.
How can we be sure? How this possibility can be denied with 100% sure?
Scientists/specialists are well paid to keep conservatives truth/reality/narrative reliable. Pure empirism is a death cult considering we have as certains/endgoal death by time and aging (losing of capabilities).
Does it make sense we, dominant specie on known universe, accepting aging and death by time as natural/inevitable?
Who says that we accept aging and death as inevitable?
We're funding lots of research projects to prolong life. Be it by looking for anti-cancer drugs or by researching telomeres.
Even a century or longer ago people were trying to gain immortality (think of the Holy Grail for example).
They were also painted. No matter how many fascists squeal about it, they won't change the fact that Romans weren't living in a white marble vaporwave screensaver
The picture on the right looks like [Sullivan](https://myanimelist.net/character/154514/Sullivan) from the anime/manga *Welcome to demon school! Iruma kun*.
Romans: we make the most complex and realistic pieces of art!
Celts: we make art (sees roman art, cries)
Scythians: art, lol. You mean that fancy stuff we buy from greeks?
r/HistoryMemes is having a civil war (again), celebrating 10 million subscribers! Support the Empires of Britain or France by flairing your post correctly. [For more information, check out the pinned post in the sub.](https://new.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/1cg09hf/the_great_historymemes_civil_war_2_10_million/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HistoryMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm not an artist and I am quite frankly often an idiot but goddamn sculpture blows my mind. I understand painting on some level even though I can't draw anything worth shit, the process makes sense and I respect the talent. Sculpture like the one on the left is just black magic to me. Some guy 2,000 years ago carves an incredible likeness out of rock, and then you look at the guys haircut and think "eh, good looking bloke, he'd probably still look good by todays standards." So my question is how come sculptures could carve incredible looking realistic figures out of goddamn rock and nail minute detail down to muscle definition, but up until a certain period paintings of humans quite frankly didn't match the level of realism? Where sculptors just gigachads at art?
>Sculpture like the one on the left is just black magic to me Take a look at [this one](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/Veiled_virgin.jpg)
I know what that photo would be before I even clicked the link. Absolutely incredible
I was hoping it was [this statue](https://www.google.com/search?q=nathan+bedford+forrest+statue+face&client=ms-android-ee-uk-revc&sca_esv=e7989b0919315ea7&sca_upv=1&udm=2&biw=384&bih=729&sxsrf=ADLYWILqKhN0Zi9kRjZwx24vos7FEnkJUA%3A1714895650690&ei=Ijs3ZoLZKdjQhbIP6PqPyAg&oq=nathan+bedford+forrest+statue+face&gs_lp=EhNtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1zZXJwIiJuYXRoYW4gYmVkZm9yZCBmb3JyZXN0IHN0YXR1ZSBmYWNlMgUQABiABDIIEAAYgAQYogRI4yhQxA9YoydwBHgAkAEBmAHyAaABnwmqAQUxLjcuMbgBA8gBAPgBAZgCDKACiAjCAgQQIxgnwgIKEAAYgAQYQxiKBcICBxAjGLACGCfCAgcQABiABBgNmAMAiAYBkgcDNC44oAepHQ&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-serp#vhid=pInk2_WMXofqWM&vssid=mosaic), which gives its subject all the respect he deserves Edit: closer image of the face
I love the poor horses expression also. should have a caption contest for what the horse is thinking.
"Oh no, he's doing the face again, isn't he?"
Dead link.
Skill issue, still works for me
Open it in your browser. Then it worked for me.
I was having a bad day but this cheered me up. Thank you
You're welcome, it always makes me happy to know he was memorialised in such a manner, I think it's somehow worse than not having a statue
Ah the ‘seethrough’ ones… if there’s something I want to last way before the last human disappears are those sculptures.
Or the sculpture of a man embracing a woman, and you can see the dimples his fingers make in her skin, making the skin appear soft.
I just googled that. Sculptures really are an amazing form of art. Also the guys legs are amazingly detailed.
By embracing you mean Pluto abducting Prosperina against her will? Amazing sculpture though. 😘
Depends on the version of the myth. In early versions it's consenting, or Zeus weds Persephone to Hades without her consent (as was the tradition), and he was just taking his bride to their new home. One of the most interesting aspects is that despite Hades' possible kidnapping of her (raptus in Latin, which is often mistranslated as rape), he does not force himself upon her and instead treats her as an equal (which was extremely rare in that time period)
Ok but that statue in particular is very definitely not a consensual depiction.
It was a medieval/renaissance era work based on the mistranslation
You can be abducted not against your will?
It's Greek mythology, everything is possible!
Whoa what sculpture is that? Incredible
Woah, some giant musta sneezed on her.
Oh yeah, I could do that. It will be ready is 758 years.
that ones just a straight up medusa victim
This woulda been prime Rickroll material.
[Why a Rick Roll?](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/207/210/b22.jpg)
This is literally down the road from me, I visit it multiple times a year and not once have I not been left completely mesmerized.
Something interesting though is that sculpture seems to be more realistic earlier in history than paintings or other flat graphic arts are. It is probably because you can more easily see something 3D than to make the transition from 3D to 2D and add shadows and all that. For example I like these [paleolithic bison sculptures](https://old.reddit.com/r/ArtefactPorn/comments/75w32v/14000_years_old_bisons_sculptures_found_in_le_tuc/). It is fairly interesting to view sculpture and paintings side by side. Everyone knows the typical Egyptian style of painting everyone from the side. [This](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Ffrn5891c9ifc1.jpeg) is a wooden statue from the Old Kingdom. Moving on to the Mochica, you have paintings which look like [this](https://images1.novica.net/pictures/4/p306932_2.jpg) and sculpture which looks like [this](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Ffifc4s7ongyc1.jpeg).
Thanks for that, I wasn't familiar at all with Egyptian sculpture, the detail is fantastic.
I think it ultimately came down to the skill of the sculptor. These works would have taken a very long time to make, I always thought that the larger works would've taken many years to complete, possibly to the extent that a single sculpture could have been an artist's life's work. As for why it declined, possibly the decline of larger civilizations led to there being fewer opportunity for these works to be sponsored, or perhaps there was some change in the culture or style that caused them to fall out of fashion. One thing that I find to be very sad is how few examples of Roman paintings have been preserved, despite how widely it was practised. The same goes for the music, to my knowledge we know almost nothing of what instruments they would've used, or what songs they created.
The wealth of the sponsor and the number of super wealthy sponsors is extremly underrated reason behind the quality of work. By Roman standards the middle ages were an era of wealth equality where the king was only a few times richer than a noble who in turn was only a few times richer than a peasant. That means there were many more sponsors but they were much poorer on average. A Roman land owner could have been a million times richer then a slave he owned and so he could afford some pretty spectacular art. After the rise of unified monarchies in Europe in 15th century the wealthy owners were once again more common and so they comissioned expensive stuff in late gothic or renaissance styles.
Silly medieval peasants, they should have just paid the sculptors in exposure.
I heard a great analogy in the context of Byzantine art being less realistic than 500ish years ago. Likewise, someone from the future could look at our art today and say that all these anime drawings were inferior to paintings 300 years ago simply because they are less photo realistic, ignoring any other defining qualities of artwork. All art is subjective, clearly people at the time have value placed on different types. Yes there is likely to be some degree of a loss of talent compared to the height of the Roman empire, but it's a lot to assume that all artistic changes derive from that.
It’s weird to see like 1980s manga compared to now in terms of realism and anatomy. Part of it I think is that there were more self-taught ones than professionals at one point.
Look up Bernini if you want to see some unbelievable stuff.
Holy shit you weren't kidding. I fucking love sculptures. I need to go to the National Gallery of Art again soon.
I think the two big pieces of information you are missing relate to how painting works as a technology. The first piece is that making 2d images that are colorfast, allow for fine details, and last hundreds of years is difficult. Paint is a technology. Oil paint didn’t exist until 7th century, and the type of oil paint you see in Renaissance paintings wasn’t invented until the 15th century. Before that, you see a lot of tempura(eggs pretty much), encaustic(wax), etc that don’t hold up as well, and it’s much harder to do transparent glazes and blend and rework, etc. To put this in perspective, go out in your yard right now and try to make a painting that will last a hundred years even. It would be much easier for you to make a nice wood or stone carving with what you find out there than it would be to find drawing or painting materials even just paper or canvas that will survive a long time. You’re simply not going to “invent” modern paint in your backyard the same way you could “invent” decent stone carving. The second piece you’re missing is the techniques and conceptual work that makes drawing and painting realistic. Perspective, anatomy, etc. are much more counterintuitive to apply to a 2d plane than they are in 3D. Even working from a live model, the ability to use a drawing implement or paint to make something on a 2D plane that looks like what you see requires a lot of leaps of logic that might seem simple to us, but would be terribly complicated to figure out if you’ve never seen it. A good comparison might me that it’s probably a lot easier for a young child to make a piece of play-doh look like a dog or a person than it is for them to make that work on paper. You’ll often see them use little stick lines for arms, a weirdly proportioned circle for a head, dots for eyes, etc. in a drawing. Then you give them play doh and the idea that arms and legs have thickness is just inherent to the medium, they get that the head needs to be bigger or smaller and a certain shape, eyes are balls stuck on there, etc. So that’s it in a nutshell. One, it’s hard to make 2d images out a material that will last a long time, so people probably made good stuff that didn’t hold up very well because it’s made of wax or whatever, and two, it takes some study and learning to conceptualize that you even *can* make a 2D image that resembles the 3D world, much less execute. And that’s not to say that sculpture is an inferior or simpler art form or something. Obviously sculpture has its own challenges in the same way and it’s impressive in its own right that so many great sculptures and their fine details have withstood the test of time so we can appreciate them today.
Foreshortening is a bitch.
>but up until a certain period paintings of humans quite frankly didn't match the level of realism? Actual paintings from periods when those sculptures were maid are realistic. If you go to Pompeii, the paintings you will find there are. But the rest of them didn't survive as well as sculptures. After the fall of Rome, the techniques were not preserved. Up until the Renesance, both paintings and sculptures in western Europe were worse than during Roman times.
The actual answer is that sculptures are 3D recreations of 3D objects while paintings are 2D recreations of 3D objects. Roman sculptures were far superior to their drawings. The absolute worst part about older paintings was the perspective and trying to create the illusion of depth on a flat surface, that isn't much of an issue with sculpture.
I remember in school I took 3D rendering for animation while also taking perspective drawing as a backup plan because I was afraid the 3D rendering was going to be really counterintuitive and mathy and I'd never be able to figure it out. Turns out I had it precisely the wrong way 'round.
> Up until the Renesance, both paintings and sculptures in western Europe were worse than during Roman times. Sculptures became more realistic earlier than paintings. Most paintings were either murals or miniatures in the W. Euro. Middle Ages. Statues of Saints, the Christ or Mary did have much more realism to them than the often flat and not very proportionate paintings.
I always come back to this quote when I look at any amazing statues/carvings: “The sculpture is already complete within the marble block, before I start my work. It is already there, I just have to chisel away the superfluous material.” ~Michelangelo Seeing his work in person as well as Caravaggio and so many of the other greats, including some amazing Greek works… just fuckin dumbfounded. I couldn’t carve a mediocre looking stick starting with a cylinder…
Perhaps it's down to the resources available at the time? For sculptures, I'd imagine all you would need would be a chunk of marble, a hammer, and a chisel. Compare that with painting. It seems a lot more complex finding the ingredients and mixing colors to create the appropriate color. Not to mention the various brushes needed. It has to be way more difficult creating a realistic painting when you have only a handful of colors and brushes to choose from.
The Fayum mummy portraits go back as far as almost 3000 years ago. Painting and sculpture don't have some sort of one up on each other at any one time it just depends on what you are looking at.
Funding from slaves does wonders for your economy to spend on focusing on lavishous art.
Partially stylistic
Romans did make some decently realistic paintings but your point stands. It comes down to the dimensions. A painter needs to utilize an intensely conplicated and varied set of techniques and tricks to create the illusion of a realistic 3D figure on a 2D surface. A sculptor can just sculpt their subject without concerning themselves with light and shadow and their impacts on color, perspective, etc. It may sound straightforward but these painting techniques took many generations of artistic innovation to develop into "realistic" portrayals.
If I had to guess, we probably had a lot more experience carving stone than we did painting. Also possible we started carving wood that didn't survive and that translated into stonework once we got tolls that could do that. But that's a particularly crackpot theory. It's also probably a case of what's survived, easier for stone to last than paintings. In fact afaik a lot of greaco-roman sculptures used to be painted Also, it's over such a long period of time, we developed a lot of new tools and techniques across that time. Like, a lot of super ancient art is fairly minimalist, afaik a lot of the super good famous paintings and sculptures are from the same era or at least close enough. Keep in mind, as interesting as it is I know jack shit about art history. This is all baseless speculation from my 3:30 am brain
They absolutely could, they just didn't want to draw in a realistic style. It's like looking at Picasso's paintings and asking why he wasn't capable of painting well.
Note that both share that glorious mustache.
That was a sign of nobility and distinction among Celts back then
So this is why Centurii-chan is depicted as not-so-closet horny for the Celts: all Romans secretly were. Edit: Also, I can't unseen the right picture as a depiction of Ancient British Pops from Regular Show.
It is an uncomfortable truth, but quite a lot of people even into the modern day fetishize people they consider "less civilized" for the "raw, primal, sexual allure" purely due to the exoticism. Without getting too controversial, just think of how many modern Harlequin romance books are written about sexy shirtless Scottish Highlanders, for example.
As a Norwegian I strongly reject the notion we lust for the Swedish barbarians.
bruh, now i can't unsee it either
Centurii-chan is the most accurate portrayal of Roman history in existence
Kinda unrelated, but all these greco Roman statues are meant to show their subjects in an *idealized* form, called idealism. Not in a realistic form, or realism.
That is a good comment. But this is true just if we deny the possibility that we are living in a stage scenary, like pets, where all past/history was created (or adapted) just for making us believing in it and accepting a non perfect life. How can we be sure? How this possibility can be denied with 100% sure? Scientists/specialists are well paid to keep conservatives truth/reality/narrative reliable. Pure empirism is a death cult considering we have as certains/endgoal death by time and aging (losing of capabilities). Does it make sense we, dominant specie on known universe, accepting aging and death by time as natural/inevitable?
I want to smoke whatever you just had
can you elaborate on this?
Who says that we accept aging and death as inevitable? We're funding lots of research projects to prolong life. Be it by looking for anti-cancer drugs or by researching telomeres. Even a century or longer ago people were trying to gain immortality (think of the Holy Grail for example).
They were also painted. No matter how many fascists squeal about it, they won't change the fact that Romans weren't living in a white marble vaporwave screensaver
Roman Vercingetorix with that dark academia rizz
Ngl those Celtic imagining of themselves looks funny and cool to me. Fuck realistic proportions! This looks better! :D
Characters in the main show vs that same character in the comedic spinoff
Pedro Pascal?
I was thinking Burt Reynolds
Didn't most Roman generals say they were the ugliest people they ever conquered?
It seams that the sculptor disagreed
damn, considering most french people derive their DNA from them that has to hurt
The picture on the right looks like [Sullivan](https://myanimelist.net/character/154514/Sullivan) from the anime/manga *Welcome to demon school! Iruma kun*.
I was totally hearing Dudley going 'you have no dignity...' Maybe he's black-black Irish :p
Celts really said fck you I want to look adorable
I've seen this meme so many times and before they've been Germanic? What is the truth?
The statue in the left is called “The Wounded Gaul”
Alright apparently you're right and it's called "Dying Gaul" actually, and the Gaul was an Anatolian one
This status is one of the reasons I shaved my beard to a glorious mustache
Asterstonx
Didn't know Pesro Pascal was a celt who fought against the romans ;)
Age old repost
We can’t fucking win I swear. Dead Internet theory going full force.
that's a fucking viltrumite
Sakamoto?
Romans: we make the most complex and realistic pieces of art! Celts: we make art (sees roman art, cries) Scythians: art, lol. You mean that fancy stuff we buy from greeks?
[it's him, he's real](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/mairimashita-irumakun/images/f/f5/Sullivan-mairimashita-iruma-kun-171061.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20200116000453)
Self celt looks like he is in middle management and selling peanuts.