[subego]

Originally Posted by Thorzdad 

acreage of ink on various arms, legs, necks, hands, etc.

This right here. JFC. It’s gotten ridiculous.

I wanted a anklet of thorns (yeah, original, I know), which I maybe should have gotten because the desire or the pattern didn’t change over about a decade, but then I hit 30 and felt if you don’t have your first by then you’ve missed the window.

[ghporter]

I got my first tattoo just about a month ago. My wife, our son, and I all got a tattoo on the theme of our last initial. All different, but definitely similar and related.

This is the first thing I ever felt I wanted to put up with seeing on my skin forever. And it took me getting to “a particular age” to find it. So I don’t think there’d been a window of being open to experimentation that I could have missed. Maybe I had an idea of what permanence means from a younger age than many…

[andi*pandi]

I've always wanted one, but a) the cost, and b) the pressure to design the perfect thing meant I never did. I have friends who really enjoy their art.

[subego]

@Glenn

That’s absolutely awesome, and I dare say adorable as well. I’d definitely say the age rule doesn’t apply to tattoos with real meaning, as opposed to almost strictly decorative like I was imagining.


@andi

That was a nice part about the thorns. I could get it off the wall.


My ex has a couple tattoos. Her recent one is really good. It’s a half-sleeve, but it’s sparse with thin line-work. At a glance it looks as much like a black wire bracer as it does a tattoo.

[Thorzdad]

I’ve only remotely considered (“remotely” as in “the distance between here and the center of the galaxy”) one tattoo. I have a six-inch scar down the center of my back from a surgery I had years ago to repair/clean-up and exploded thoracic disc. I’ve thought about a simple line-drawing of a bracket running the length of it with a notation of what the medical procedure was. That, or one of those long dotted lines with a scissors along it...the classic “cut on this line” graphic.

But, man, the cost of an even moderately-good full-sleeve tattoo can easily be in four-figures.

[subego]

This is the one I was talking about. Pic was from right after it was done, so it’s thinner and less angry now.

[andi*pandi]

I like that a lot.

[ghporter]

Here’s the artwork for mine - I don’t have a photo of the finished tattoo handy.

The moon and the sword (blade and grip) are dark blue, while the other parts are black.

[subego]

That’s awesome! What’s the story behind the sword design? I don’t thing I’ve seen a crossguard plus forward basket before

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

I like that a lot.

This reply made her day.

[ghporter]

The sword is essentially a clipart item that was “close to” what I wanted, then I tweaked it a bit to finish it out.

There is a purpose to a cross guard beyond protecting one’s fingers: you can wrap your index finger around it and get more control (especially in rotation of the blade), while the basket provides protection.

[subego]

IIUC, back in the day, one of the most effective ways to use a sword against an opponent with metal armor was to flip it around and use the cross guard like it’s the head of a pickaxe.

Wearing gloves is recommended.

[ghporter]

Oh yes, gloves like you’d wear to wrestle eagles. Also, the pommel (the round weight at the end of the grip) does more than help with balance…. Not quite pickaxe-like, but it can dent armor really well, and denting it in the right place can impair or disable the person in armor.

However, one uses a different type of sword for armored combat than for more swashbuckling encounters. Also, the approach to fighting is different depending on what kind of armor is involved; plate armor versus maille versus leather…

And people think I just go to Ren Faires to ogle the wenches and drink mead.

[subego]

I kinda get the impression a sword isn’t the best weapon against a decently armored opponent, hence the need for all the tactics utilizing the non-business end.

A mace, axe, hammer, or pick might be better choices. Honorable mention to a half-dozen serfs dogpiling the bastard first.

Of course, if I have to stop a half-dozen serfs trying to dogpile me, sword’s the way to go. No question.

[ghporter]

To take on armored opponents, you use archers. The English Longbow was so powerful that life-long archers experienced some drastic changes to their bodies from its use.

Read this article about the how and why of longbowmen’s physical changes.

They could “punctuate” a man wearing armor from quite a distance.

[subego]

I said “decent” armor, but I guess I mean “peak” armor.

So that’s steel plates, over maille, over 20 layers of linen… and a shield.

I’m not even feeling the arrows until 30 yards out, and that’s waaaay too late for the archers.

Of course, only a noble would have that kind of kit.

[ghporter]

And that noble would have very limited mobility. His steed would have issues galloping with him aboard, too. Plus, have you ever seen those 6’+ long swords? They’re for taking out horses’ legs from far enough away from the rider that there’s not much defense.

It’s all trade-offs. In reality much warfare in the Middle Ages was essentially a combination of fancy guys on horses behind what could be called a human “zerg rush” of pikers and such. Messy. Of course gunpowder took the advances of archery and made them even more devastating.

[subego]

Q.E.D.

You have to go for the horse’s legs with a sword because arrows won’t do shit.

Not to mention if the archers pivot to aim at the noble flanking them, they’ve stopped shooting at Zergs.