ookie-spooky
A taste of autumn~
History wants so badly for Cleopatra to be beautiful. Like they can’t conceive of Rome being intimidated by anything less
andrastini
I challenge you to listen to this without squealing, blushing or getting cute aggression!
fandonetrash
xlynchiex
because being a linguist, fleet commander, and powerful ruler doesn’t matter, only her looks
Her Arab contemporaries raved about her being very interested and knowledgeable in the sciences.
She completely reformed the system in Alexandria, and Egypt at large; making it much more of a functional powerhouse.
She did what 300 years of her ancestors couldn’t: Managed to get the support of both the Greek AND Egyptian subjects she ruled.
There is a sculpture that has been identified as her, through comparisons to coins minted under her rule, that proves beyond a doubt that she wasn’t particularly beautiful.
It isn’t that people just happen to believe it by mistake. Rome was fucking terrified of her and painted her as a vapid, scheming, beautiful, sex obsessed queen to discredit her to their people. She was a threat, and that was how they handled it. The unfortunate thing is that that is the most surviving record of her. A smear campaign against one of the smartest, most powerful women in human history.
This is a woman who became her father’s co-ruler at nearly 14 years old in order to train for her actual ascension to the throne, who was forced to marry her own siblings in order to keep her power, and it’s widely believed that she poisoned them so she could rule alone. She’s a Pharaoh who led Egypt into a new era of wealth, who went fearlessly into war to protect her rule and Egypt’s independence from the Roman empire, a woman who took her own life rather than face being raped and tortured by her conquerors, knowing full well that she was leaving her surviving children in their uncertain mercy. Cleopatra is one of the most interesting, morally ambiguous, complexing historical figures we have and the media has turned her into a tantalizing sex object for the male gaze.
Even after Cleopatra died her influence on those around her lived on: her daughter, Cleopatra Selene, was the only child of Cleopatra’s to live to adulthood, and she became queen of Mauretania along with her husband Juba and it’s believed they married for love, which was extremely rare for that time period, especially among nobles/the upper class. Not only did she grow up in the house of her mother’s worst enemy and technical murderer, but she still went on to become a queen who possessed an equal amount of political power as her husband, even having her face minted on coins on the opposite side of his likeness, showing they were equal rulers.
Cleopatra and her influence on history, and her daughter’s legacy, have both been brushed aside in favour of the sexy Cleopatra visage. It’s bullshit. Egyptian mythology is interesting and vivid, and full of powerful women and it’s bullshit that we take some of the most powerful women in Africa’s history and try to turn them into fashion icons or sluts who only ruled through toying with men.
I LIVE FOR PEOPLE TO KNOW THIS, people still refuse to believe that a woman can/could have achieved anything without beauty or fucking magical powers
fantasy-writing
fantasy-writing
stillusesapencil asked:
Hey y'all, thanks for what you do. So my fantasy novel culminates in an epic battle (typical, I know). I don't know a whole lot about military or historical fighting and I could use some help. I know what weapons are being used and also have rough estimates on the size of the armies, and I know who will win and why (it involves a dragon). I need basic military strategy advice better than…two hordes running at each other across a plain. Thank you!
fantasy-writing answered:
First, consider the battleground. The field in which the battle takes place is extremely important, as the terrain can offer advantages and disadvantages to the conflicting armies, depending on their position.
If they are in an open field, chances are that both armies have very dumb commanders, one army is about to be ambushed, or whoever has more bowmen is about to laugh their way home.
Let’s talk about the last point: bowmen. Ranged combat ability was the absolute must-have for any army to stay in the game. You can’t stick your opponent with a sword if he’s already stuck you with an arrow, and the arrow definitely reaches much further than a sword. As seen in the Battle of Agincourt, the English fended off a much larger force, with an army comprised of 5/6ths longbowmen, 1/6th men at arms, knights, etc. The French, however, had many knights with a very small amount of ranged support, and they were the attackers.
Adding onto this, if we look at the terrain, we can tell from historical record that the field in which the French had to run through was recently ploughed, and therefore the soil was loose. The recent heavy rain did not help this, making the soil muddy, and difficult to traverse, especially in full plate armor. The archers were positioned nearly perpendicular to the smaller melee force, allowing them to fire upon the enemy even after their vanguard had been engaged in combat, something they would not be able to accomplish if they were hiding behind the knights and men at arms.
To add to the very smart placement of the archers, the English fortified their position with sharpened stakes, to prevent the French cavalry from attacking the archer’s position. This, coupled with the difficulty of riding through a forest, made the French cavalry attack an utter failure, and left the English longbowmen safe to defend from the main attack.
That’s only one battle, but it is surely the most famous. There are many different battles you can find and research online. Take some time to learn about the types of medieval battles that took place, and you’ll quickly understand how warfare looked like back then, along with how a seasoned commander thought.
Good luck.
- The Artificer.
To clarify, the archers were set up in the edges of the forests, on either side of the plain. I forgot to mention this, might cause some confusion since I mentioned a forest. - The Artificer
alexreadsboooks
I completely forgot to post this morning!
How is your day so far?
I’ve just been busy with work so far. It’s really exciting, and I’ve learned a lot over the past week :D
*
#augustlibrary17 Day 8: Less is more
Have a minimalist book cover for today’s prompt!
*
#bookstagram #bookish #booklover #bookworm #booklr #books #bibliophile #augustbookchallenge #bookstagrammer #booklove #booksofinstagram #instabook #read #reading #reader #buch #bücher #lesen #bookstagramfeature #bookphotography #leser #igbooks #bookishallure #amandalovelace #theprincesssavesherselfinthisone #poetry #minimalist
writingwithcolor
How do I make it clear that my Neo Nazi Elf Bankers Aren’t Jewish?
Hello,
I’m writing a fantasy that attempts to deconstruct or satirize a lot of the fantasy tropes and a big one is how intentionally or not, anything to do with finance ends up being antisemitic. Since so many characters who handle money are jewish caricatures, intentional or not (HP’s goblins for example) I wanted to go the other direction. Instead of bankers being goblins or having features rooted in antisemitism, they’re elves.
Elves are often portrayed in fantasy as being a kind of “superwhite.” They have Aryan features, are light skinned and are the force of good (or at least good aligned) in those stories. In my story however, they’re essentially a metaphor for white privilege. (I’m white btw). The Aryan features are emphasized for the elves, silver white or blond hair, blue eyes, light skin, small noses. They’re born into the dominant class of their city state, they control much of the city’s government and finances, but do so in ways that prey on nonelves, use others as fodder for their wars, are the face of the ruling class, have most of the wealth and control the banking sector. Plus many are that world’s equivalent of neo-nazis. So yeah, by the end it’s really clear that elves aren’t the good guys.
There’s also a plot point that focuses around the poorest of the city-state having no choice but to sell their firstborn to the financial sector in order to survive. this causes them to stop having children and eventually the banking sector gets the government to intervene.
It’s meant to be an indictment of white and especially rich white people who have control over the central foundations of a society and use it to enrich themselves at the detriment of others. Or just those born into a system that allows them to survive easily because it’s made to help them (the elves) and not others.
My concern is that due to so many antisemitic tropes revolving around banking, secret societies or controlling the government, that alone will make the elves seem jewish, and hence the writing appear to be antisemitic, when I went out of my way to code them as white. Based on my description, would that be clear, or would a reasonable reader still think the characters were coded as jewish?
thank you for reading this and any help.
The idea of predatory “Aryan” (in quotes because the Nazis were using the word inaccurately) elves amuses me because it’s definitely an inversion of the existing tropes. I have a question: are your oppressed humans dark-haired and dark-eyed? Because that would be the other half of the “Northern European gentiles at the top of the racial privilege ladder” coding you were going for. I think if I saw blonde-haired, blue-eyed, pale-skinned elves oppressing human characters with darker features I’d definitely get that what you wrote is not anti-Semitic but instead a condemnation of white privilege. It would also feel disingenuous to condemn white privilege by having your oppressed characters be white, light-featured, and not ethnically coded anything but Anglo and Christian/fantasy-pagan; that’s how we wind up with “Mutant oppression in X-men is a metaphor for homophobia, but the main characters are still totally straight!”
So tl;dr you’re fine, just consider making your humans not blonde/blue-eyed/Christian-or-fantasy-pagan-coded so that the trope-skewering is complete.
If you want to add some more layers to make sure nobody “goes there”, you can always have the elves doing things like eating pork or shellfish (shellfish seems more elflike than pork somehow; pork is so earthy! Imagine elves eating oysters off of fancy platters. So delicate. So refined) or participating in some kind of cultural ritual that evokes Christianity or paganism, like, putting up a wreath as a decoration when it’s cold.
I want to point out something: if the bankers at Gringotts had been fairies or elves nobody would have thought of us. That’s another reason I think you’re safe. Nobody is going to associate a beautiful banking class with us, sadly. (I know this is different from Mother Gothel but in her case it’s a combination of hair + the stolen baby trope which probably works differently from the banking trope. Tropes don’t all work the same way.)
–Shira,
more hobbit than dwarf
weneeddiversebooks
sweetlittlevampire
Teddy bear eyes were the first thing I thought when I saw Tiny Groot in GotG2 XD
…yes. XD
fanboy-butt-cheeks
failedyoursavingthrow
I use a lot of gamer slang but I recently realized that some of my players have no idea what these words mean, so here’s a guide to different types of characters!
Tank: A character who can afford to take a ton of damage and is really hard to kill. Typically can be found front and center in any combat situation. Also called a Meatshield.
Glass Cannon: A character who can deal a ton of damage all at once, but doesn’t have a lot of hitpoints. They are fragile, but dangerous.
Squishie: Any character who should avoid melee fighting without backup because they’re just not very tough. Most non warriors or healers are squishies.
Skill Monkey: Any character who is really good at a lot of different things outside of combat situations. Often have eclectic skill sets.
Book Jockey: Any character with a lot of “knowledge” skills, see also Scholar and Neeeeeerd.
Face: A face character is good at the “talking” skills, like Diplomacy and Bluff. They often gravitate towards leadership positions within the party as they’re the best at dealing with NPCs and convincing others to go along with their decisions.
Buffer: Someone who makes their allies more effective. Typically thought of as weak, but can easily turn the tide in combat situations. Also called Support characters.
Zoo Keeper: Any character who is outnumbered by their own animal companions/mounts/familiars/pets/summons.
Please note that any given character could be multiple of these or even none at all!
Feel free to reblog with your own terminology!
Zoo keepers can also be referred to as Pokemon Trainers.
I like it!
I call our human rogue (skill monkey) the Swiss army butter knife
sweetlittlewritings
Swans
I love watching the swans. How they glide over the water, seemingly effortless, beautifully silent. How they add grace to any location or scenery.
Yet, their beauty hides danger; they can be very vicious, and when they attack, the outcome is most painful. Broken bones, loud shrieks, feathers flying about. Brutality in its rawest form.
A perfect metaphor for life.
I sometimes wonder if the swans know of their beauty. If they carry themselves to hide their own pain and sorrow, to keep the ruthless world muffled and let only the pleasant shine through.
Lavender rain keeps falling as I make my way to the park lake. The streets shine and glow; the city sighs, its breath forms misty clouds. The gaslights shine dimly, muffled like a piano sonata being played in another room.
Quiet, but not silent. Pale, but not colourless.
yourfavouritedoll