Because she sure KICKS ASS!

Best rant I've read in a while.

I thought you were calling me a gamer 'ho!

this is why I always need to wear glasses

well OK

Barbie Doll.. well, who knows.. maybe that will come next.

One of the reason I liked merida is that she was NOT the standard disney princess that needed a prince charming.

One of the nieces wanted to be Merida for Halloween, and every costume was the dress that Merida hated in the movie. Couldn't find ANY with her looking like herself. Eventually my SIL just made her a costume. It's ridiculous. Merida is an interested character who looks like a normal girl, why does that need to change?

...and pffft! to Disney.

Brave was a wonderful animated feature and Merida was terrific! Then they turn around and subvert the essence of the character. Really, really bad decision and I am glad that Brenda Chapman decided to speak out about it.

Paint her face like Tammy Faye, cinch her waist like Barbie, and take away her bow and arrows -- now she's a real Disney princess.

The new rendering is not a teenager; it's a grown woman.

I wish that I were artistic. It would be a fun exercise to take animated boy characters and give them a similar treatment.

I'm not a big Disney princess person, but totally adore Merida.

I'm so sick of this.

Strawberry Shortcake, Rainbow Brite, My Little Pony... everything gets "updated" by becoming more sexualized, and - of course - thinner.

And now Merida.
There was finally going to be a Disney princess with crazy hair like mine...

What in the world was wrong with her "before" picture???

That's what was wrong with her. And because ultra mega CEO's are usually men, as are a large number of the animators, designers and the supervisors of those departments; ALL decisions concerning females are made based on their assessment and impression of females. It comes from a male's picture of females. That filtered concept of "what females are" is deeply ingrained. Very deeply. Most people (women too, in fact) don't even recognise what's wrong with going along with the superficial and unipolar interpretation of femaleness

In other words, if we consider the filters they look through, the only women this type of man even notices are the ones who make their weewees twingle a bit.

Sex pot cartoon characters are very VERY popular certain kinds of men (and boys!). Disneyfied Merida will make a LOT of $$$$$$$$$$ for Mr. Whatever his name is.

Same kind of relationship as between a pimp, his money-makers and the customers.

The change.org petition is here:

https://www.change.org/petitions/disney-say-no-to-the-merida-makeover-keep-our-hero-brave

But it looks like Disney has reverted images to the REAL Merida and not STRIPPER Merida:

http://princess.disney.com/images/focus-4dc126b8593815b5acf0f446?list=4dbd89303ea95c28ac257c09

Win?

As the mother of boys, I want them to see girls as powerful and not as sex objects. Shame on Disney.
I signed the petition.
B

has the movie outfit, http://www.disneystore.com/transfer/280559/dolls-toys-merida-talking-doll-17/mp/1318470/1000259/?cmp=OTL-Dcom&att=Dcom_FS_Princess_Merida_Feed ,but all the dress up costumes are the fancy dress...

Disney crammed another character into the approved "mold". Why are you surprised? Everything Disney gets it's pernicious talons around, gets a forced makeover. (ex: see ABC). All according to focus groups, all to encourage profit.
Corporate Disney would make a wonderful villain for one of it's own stories, except the peasants get robbed, the prince gets eaten, and the princess get forced into prostitution.

That's ANOTHER reason for me to detest them

Last edited Thu May 16, 2013, 03:22 AM - Edit history (4)

More on the Sarmatians:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarmatians

Their "Iranian" cousins the Scythians:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythians

The similar sounding by unrelated Samaritans, who are mentioned in the New Testament:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaritans

After about the time of the Birth of Christ (1 AD), the Sarmatians started to be referred to as the Alans:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alans

The Huns attacked and destroyed the unity of the Alans around 370 AD, at that point many, if not most went west with the Goths and other Germanic Tribes of the migration period and is believed to have settled in various places from Portugal to Switzerland. The remaining Eastern tribes retreated into the Caucasus mountains and become the Ossentians, yes the people who want to be in Russia, even if the rest of the world wants them to be in Caucasus Nation-state of Georgia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ossetians

Anyway, ancient sources (Mostly Greeks) report on the Sarmatians that no virgin of that Tribe could marry till she killed four men in battle. Some Historians believe the Greek legend of the Amazons are related to Greek unwillingness to understand the Sarmatians/Alans and how Woman in that tribe could, at times, even RULE men, when such rule was by popular choice (i.e. NOT an hereditary right like a King, but a Vote by Acclamation).

More on the Female Warriors of the Sarmatians:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woman_warrior

The ancient Sarmatians buried their leaders, they buried them with extensive goods that they had used in life. About 20% of such graves that have been found are for woman, but none of them contain a sword. The graves of men always contain a sword. This complies with the reports we have of the Sarmatians, they were an Iranian speaking people who breed the best horses in the Ancient World (It is believe the Arab came from them via the Byzantine or Sassanian Persian Empires, maybe both). Women fought in battle, but as Light Calvary, Men could fight as Light or heavy Cavalry.

Unlike their near cousins the Scythians, the Sarmatians did not treat their women like property, but had a different approach to the relationship between men and women. It is believe they invented the Saddle and the concept of Heavy Calvary (Through not the Stirrup, that is still attribute to the Byzantine Empire). Saddles for horses were unknown to the Ancient Greeks, but were the norm by the time of Constantine (if NOT the time of Trajan, Trajan sent a group of Dacians to what is now England after he had conquered Dacia).

The later Avars, who lived in the area the Alans had lived in and used the same tactics as the Alans. When the Avars were given gifts by the Romans,they refused to accept any sword with more then one edge (i.e. they like the Saber not the ancient two edge sword). This reflected a preference for heavy Calvary tactics.

How the Sarmatians/Alans fought was hated by their enemies, and gave raise to the legend of the Amazons (And appears to be adopted by the Goths, Huns and Avars). The Goths destroyed the Sythians around 300 AD and limited the Alans to the Ukraine, the Huns and Avars defeated the Alans in the late 300s and moved into what is now the Ukraine. The Alans did not disappear, but became part of the Hunic military empire, till it collapsed after the death of Attila the Hun in 453 AD.

Several reported aspects of the legends of the Amazons can be explained by the tactics used by the Sarmatians, and a refusal of the Ancient Greeks to understand a more equal treatment of women then they own society (The Ancient Greeks were one of the most sexist people who ever lived, in some ancient cities of Greece the men and women spoke two different dialect of Greek given the lack of interaction between the sexes. Today the only place you have a similar difference is in Yemen).

Some of the legends of the Amazons best explained by the Sarmatian/Alans and their tactics:

1. The report of Women being in charge, but no men (except captured for reproduction reasons). The Ancient Greeks could NOT accept rule by a Woman except by succession and that was clearly NOT the rule among the Sarmatians/Alans. Thus the report that men were killed once the woman had conceived is the only way the Ancient Greek Writers could understand how a society run by woman could operate. The idea that a woman could command men, by the choice of the men, was unacceptable to the Ancient Greeks, and thus any group that had a woman command men could not exist, and the only way for woman to rule by popular will was that the only people in that society be woman.

2. The Greek reports the Amazons having the best horses and being good archers. This is well known to apply to the Sarmatians/Alans.

3. The Greek report that the Amazons burned off their right breast so they could shoot an bow. Burning off a breast will not make a woman a better archer, but if a woman on horseback would take her child into battle with her, sucking on her left breast, that would appear to an Ancient Greek that she had burned off her right breast. The Child wrapped up in a sling so the Child would be tight against the woman and under whatever armor she was wearing but still would make her left breast bigger then her right breast but THAT was totally unbelievable to the Ancient Greeks and thus not recorded for they preferred to believe women will burn off their breasts first.

4. The use of "Python Armor". This sounds like Roman Scale Armor. Scale Armor is easy to repair in the field and easy to adjust. For More Details see Side Note Four Below but this type of armor would permit a baby to be carried under the armor with modification one can do in the field.

The Sarmatian tactics were simple and deadly and why, till the Huns destroyed then using similar tactics in 370 AD, they controlled what is now the Ukraine. Young women would ride as mounted archers, riding their fast horses at a gallop while shooting arrows into enemy formations. Pre-Teens and older women would ride herd over replacement horses thus providing the young women fresh mounts. Such harassment could be kept up for days. This is why the Greeks report no Sarmatian Virgin could marry till she had killed four enemies in battle. This tactic is still practiced among the Mongols of Mongolia, and other horse riding people of Russia and China (Through these riders today tend to use AKs and SKSs instead of the bow).

Now, you ask where were the men? While the women were performing "Light Cavalry" duties, i.e. harnessing the enemy, the Men were just sitting on their horse on the nearest high point. What were they waiting for? For the enemy formation to break and chase after the women. That breach of the enemy formation would be the location of the men's full scale heavy cavalry charge.

Thus the women and their light cavalry tactics set up the enemy for a charge by the men when such a charge was called for. The men sitting on their horses protected the women, for if the enemy chased after the women, they would break formation and open a gap for the men to charge into. This is classic light and heavy cavalry tactics, used even today (Through mostly by light infantry), harass the enemy till they do something stupid due to the harassment and then pounce with your heavy units.

The heavy (men) formation is believe to be the same as the heavy cavalry units mentioned by Emperor Maurice in his book on tactics, the "Stragikon". The basic unit was the "Tagma" (Which may be the Greek name for the type of unit, other people may have called it other names). The Tagma contained 200-400 men (average appears to be 310), and seven lines deep. The first two lines were all armed with lances. The next four lines were all armed with bows. The lasts (the seventh line) was armed with lances. The archers were trained to shoot volumes of arrows over the head of the first two lines into the enemy, as the whole Tagma did the charge, Both Archers and Lances worn heavy armor, as did their horse. They looked like an Mid evil Knight.

Photo of a person and horse in the armor of a Byzantine Cataphract or heavy Calvary man:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cataphract

This combination of shock (The charge of the lance mounted armored horsemen and the fire from the Horse Archers) would break an enemy caught unprepared as when they broke formation to chase away the light cavalry who had been harnessing them.

The Ancient HEAVY Cavalry tactics are noted a Greek Report of Emperor Maurice in his book "Strategikon" (About 600 AD).

More on the Ancient heavy Cavalry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cataphract

More on the Strategikon:
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/strategikon/strategikon.htm

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?436789-Historiae-The-Strategikon-about-tactics-and-formations

The Sarmatian-Alan's tradition spread throughout Europe and women Archers were well known in the Dark Ages and even the Late Middle Ages. The Bow was the preferred weapon of women, for they could use it to defend themselves (Other weapons depended more on muscle, and given the strength difference between men and women, those weapons tended to be more advantageous to men then women in a fight).

One of the stories of Robin Hood relates to a time when Marian, dressed as a page went to see him in Sherwood forest, and not seeing Robin, shoot at a deer that Robin was taking aim at. The story goes that it was a difficult shot and Robin was mad for someone else getting his deer. This lead to a sword fight between the two archers, neither one recognizing the other. In the fight Robin thinks he is dueling with a 14 year old pages just plays with the page, Marian knowing she is on the weaker side, waits for an opening. Robin men show up, see what is occurring and urges on the fight. Marian sees a chance and un=words Robin's sword and putting her sword on his neck and telling him and his men to leave "him" alone (Remember Marian is playing a page in this story). Anyway Robin's men having recognized her (and knowing she would beat Robin, for she was a trained and experienced 21 year old WOMAN not a 14 year old male page). Thus as Marian put her sword to Robin's neck they started to yell that the page should kill Robin of Lockable so Little John would become their leader (A song is started about how Maid Marian killed Robin of Lockable). At that point Robin and Marian finally look at each other and see who they had been fighting.

I bring up the above story of Robin Hood and Maid Marian for it shows even in the Middle Ages Woman with Bows were known and accepted as normal. The Sword fight, in the story, had to account for why the weaker side won (Thus that Robin just wanted to show the 14 year old page who was boss when Robin was fighting an experience person). No such requirement was needed for the arrow shot. In the Story, it was to said to be a difficult shot for Robin, But Marian's shot was even harder.

Many of the Stories of Robin Hood are fictional. but like a lot of such fictional stories contain some truth, especially in the use by bows and arrows by women. The tales of Robin Hood were NOT stories of Monsters defeated by heroes, but resistance to wrong doing by people in authority. Thus the stories had to be possible and believed doable by the people hearing them. The story itself may never have occurred, but HOW things occur had to be true (i.e. Robin, in his tales, never defeats a knight in open combat, as a archer he would lost. but as an archer he could have defeated the knight if he made sure he had the range and used the trees for protection). The same for the story of Maid Marian and her use of a bow, it had to be something the common people knew of and that meant it was fairly common for women to use bows.

Side note one: The Avars and the Slavs:

Please note, the Avars (Due to the name being similar to the Alans) were a Turkic people that seem to have come along with the Huns and replaced the Alans in the lands the Alans had before 370 AD. The Avars survived till the 9th Century, through by the 8th century they were more Slavic then Turkish. The reason for this was simple, the people of Eastern Europe above Greece had tended to be herders not farmers till the introduction of the Heavy Plow around 500 AD. The Slavs embraced the Heavy Plow over the next 300 years converted Eastern Europe from a huge pasture to Agriculture. The winter freezing of the ground made the ground to hard to do Mediterranean style farming north of Greece except in small plots. The Heavy Plow appears to have come from Asia Minor, at the same time Chinese Iron Making (Which was more efficient then the Roman or Greek method of making iron and steel) was introduced into Eastern Europe. The heavy plow made in possible to farm areas with hard winters, and thus most of Central to Northern Europe became tillable. This embracing of the heavy plow permitted the Slavs to embrace farming and quickly outnumber the herding people that surrounded them, slowing replacing the various heading people of Europe, pushing as far West as the Elbe in present day Germany, and Athens in present day Greece (one Slavic Tribe even reached England and it is believe their introduced the heavy plow to England). The Avars survived, but more a Slavic people and till defeated by Charlemagne in the 790s then they disappeared, absorbed by the much larger Slavic population.

More on the Avars:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasian_Avars
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avar_Khaganate#Collapse

A lot of Americans do not know of the Slavic Invasions due to several reasons:
1. The Slavic migrations occurred AFTER the fall of the Western Roman Empire (450 AD, most Slavs did not start to move till about 570 AD).
2. At the height of the Slavic Invasions, the Arab invasion occurred, it was more dramatic in that Egypt fell out of Roman Hands.
3. The Slavic Invasions seems to be more family base then tribal based, i.e. a family of farmers moved into an area and started to farm it, as oppose to the Arabs and the earlier invaders of the Roman Empire, who tended to just replace the ruling elite but left whoever was farming alone. Thus you had no great battles, but like the American Movement West, conversion of land to farming that had not been used for farming.
4. The Pitch battles that were fought against the Slavs, tended to be Slavic Victories for they had the resources to man a large army to defeat most invaders (Just like the settlement of the American West, the Slavs moved in, if anyone tried to remove them, these enemies of the Slavs found themselves outnumbered and thus quickly defeated, just like the American defeated the Native Americans. No one wants to write about their defeats so these were downplayed or even ignored (Please note, after the Arab invasion had been pushed back and the Byzantine Empire was safe, Constantinople sent troops to the Balkans to defeat the Slavs and their Allies NOT the Arabs, due to Constantinople feared the Slavs more then the Arabs).

More on the Slavic Invasions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavs

I mention the Slavs for their early history is tied in with the Avars, who tended to replace the Alans in areas that later became Slavic. All three groups tended to have strong female leaders and these leaders were accepted even by the men. One reason for this is that unlike the Germans, Romans and Greeks, the main Slavic Pagan God was Female and tied in with Farming. When the Slavs embraced Christianity, the Virgin Mary tended to replace that ancient Goddess. Thus you see a lot of worship of Mary among the Slavs (A similar event is seen in Western Europe, many of the roles of Goddess Athena became the roles of Mary). Thus you have a long history of Strong willed Women leading their own lives among the people of Eastern Europe. Not that Eastern Europe is a place were women are treated better then in the West, but that women have a greater role outside the home then in other cultures.

Side Note Two - Women carrying babies on their left

When men pick up and hold a baby, there is an slightly greater chance that the baby will be held in the right arm. That is NOT true of woman. When a woman picks up a baby, 86% of the time it will be in her left arm (Unless the woman is going through severe stress then the child being on the left falls to 67 % of the time). This is true if she is left handed or right handed.
There are two leading theory for this, First is that the baby likes being on the left for that means the child is over where her mother's heart is and can hear it beat. The second theory theory is that being on the mother's left put the Child RIGHT ear by her month so the Baby can hear her through the baby's right ear, which is believed to be connected to the learning parts of the brain better then the left ear (Please note BOTH may be true, this is NOT an either or question). In this paper why women carry babies on their left is unimportant for this subject, but that WOMAN will tend to put a Baby on her left, over her left breast is important and thus I am mentioning it.. The Baby over the Left Breast would look to an Ancient Greek as if one breast is smaller then the other and it had to be burned off to be like that. Given the Culture of Ancient Greece, the idea that a MOTHER would go into BATTLE with her BABY was completely unbelievable. Is suspect MOST of the Sarmatian/Alan women did NOT go into battle with their babies, but some may have and that would explain the Greek report of the burning of the Right Breast.

More on women holding babies on their left:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Healthday/story?id=4508461&page=1#.UZMtS6LMCEY
http://sites.stat.psu.edu/~tph/f01/stat100.2/Lecture27/tsld007.htm

Shoppers carry their bags in their left arm only 50% of the time:
http://sites.stat.psu.edu/~tph/f01/stat100.2/Lecture27/tsld009.htm

95% of Rhesus monkeys will hold their babies on their left:
http://sites.stat.psu.edu/~tph/f01/stat100.2/Lecture27/tsld006.htm

Side note Three: Clean Shaved men:

One of the question of history is where did Scipio Africanus get his concept of shaved and crew cut men as the idea solder? Prior to Africanus a Roman Male wore a long bread. This was also true of the Ancient Greeks (Through the Romans thought the Greek Practice of making perms and shaping the bread just plan wrong). Africanus told his men he wanted them Clean Shaved and short hair so their enemies had one less thing to grab in close combat. Given his defeat of Hannibal, his conquest of Macedonia and Greece AND that his two nephews, the Gracchi were the first and last Roman leaders who wanted to do long needed land reform, made shaved men with Crew Cuts the Western European Normal till this vary day (Men have varied from it, but sooner or later it comes back). During the 3rd Century, Rome embraced the Greek Style of Bread, but with Constantine. the Africanus normal became the normal again.

Alexander the Great had gone clean shaved (but with long hair). This was the normal for Greeks for the next 200 years (with about a 100 year overlap with Africanus's Clean Shave and Short hair). The big question where did this idea of clean shaved men come from? We now the Scythian men wore beards, but we have reports that is NOT true of the Sarmatians/Alans. The Range of a Bow is about 100 yards, you can shoot longer but the arrow tend to be very weak and inaccurate. If the Sarmatians/Alans did use women as light Cavalry, one way to hide the fact the horse troops nearing the enemy is not women is to have the men clean shaved. Armor and other articles of clothing could cover up most of the other differences between men and women, but a beard is hard to hide, except if you shave it off. It was one more edge for the Sarmatians/Alans seem to have adopted to confuse and defeat their enemies.

This may have been a lesson the Alans learned from fighting the Turks out of what is now Turkmenistan. The Turks, being of the "Mongolian" race, tend NOT to have extensive facial hair. Thus a man could sneak in among woman and not be notice till it was to late (i.e. Men doing a heavy cavalry charge could intermingle with the women doing light cavalry tactics and the difference in the method of attack would not be detected by the enemy till it was to late). The Turks or Mongols may have taught this lesson to the Alans, who then started to have their men be clean shaved. Alexander may have seen this in his fights with the Scythians before he moved on Greece and Persia. Africanus was known for his preference for Greek Dress (Rejected by his fellow Romans) but his demand for men to be clean shave and with short hair became the Western European Standard for men to this day. It may have started with the Alans, so that at 100 yards people could NOT quickly see of a person was male or female.

Side Note Four, types of armor:

(a) The Ancient Greeks used one piece bronze armor. It is the heaviest armor to wear and to be efficient has to be custom made to the wearer's body. It encourage heat stroke for it traps heat in the body. The Romans refused to use such armor preferring other types of armor protection.

(b) Leather Armor was also used, more breathable then Iron or Bronze but heavier, tended to be viewed as a poor man's armor. To be effective has to be heavier then metal armor and thus best used as under armor for other armor.

(c) Cloth Armor was also used, feather armor among the Aztec (which was reported by the Spanish to be effective enough against the weapons of the Aztecs). Silk was the preferred armor in China. The Mongols used it during the Mongol Empire. Silk is the longest nature thread and thus will spread out any impact over the widest part of the body. Nylon has a longer thread length, Kevlar even longer. None of these materials, Silk, Nylon or Kevlar was available to the Alans or Romans so cloth armor did not appear among the armor in the West.

(d) During the Roman Republic, the preferred armor seems to have been Mail It was the Ancient Celts that invented Mail armor. Mail is the very efficient form of armor, if not the most efficient way to use metal armor. The interconnected links will spread out any impact to a wider portion of the body then even silk and thus minimize the effect of the impact. Mail Armor permits the body to breath but depending on how tight is the "weave" of the mail gives the limit of protection of Mail Armor. The use of Mail by the Celts is probably why they were able to defeat the Sythians and replace them in Eastern Europe after about 200 BC. The Romans used Mail extensively, learning about it from the Celts. The Alans seem NEVER to have adopted Mail armor, various ancient writers came up with various rationales, but NOT what I believe is the correct one (See f below). The Alans used what the Greeks called "Python Armor", which is believe to be like the scale armor worn by Roman Soldiers under the Empire.

(e) You must remember, before 109 BC, all Roman Soldiers were Roman Citizens that were called to Arms and had to bring their own armor and weapons. If they could afford it, it was Mail. If they could not, the fleet would take in any male would could not afford armor. In 109 BC Maius changed that rule, raising two legions by agreeing to arm and PAY anyone who wanted to serve. Thus the Roman Army went from a Universal Militia type army to a mercenary army. The reason for this was simple, the Roman people did not support the war being proposed and refused to show up for the call to arms. Marius's solution was to go with mercenaries instead (Through these were still Roman Citizens). Marius ended up being killed when his lieutenant, Sulla, decided to revolt against him with his own mercenaries after Marius had released his from service. The lesson was learned, these legionary mercenaries had to be paid and who paid them won their loyalty. Caesar would use these legions into power, Augustus would keep them loyal by paying them.

(f) The Roman Emperors of the Empire viewed keeping the army PAID a priority, but also a constant cost and were always looking to cut costs (For example after Augustus had won his Civil War with Anthony, the pay of the troops were kept constant by Augustus and his successors, even through what could be purchased with that pay dropped by almost 30% by the time of Nero). Other cost saving plans were introduced, one was the adoption of Scale Armor, believed to be derived from the Alans. It was substantially cheaper to produce then mail. Except for making the actual Metal Scales no metal working was needed (Unlike Mail, which required metal working in making the links AND linking the links). In Scale Armor, all you had were small pieces of metal which were sewed into an underlying leather or cloth backing. To the Alans it had another characteristic (which the Roman Supply officer also liked), It was easy to adjust based on body mass. To the Romans it would be issued to anyone and adjustments made by removing scales or adding scales. To the the Alans, the ability to add or remove Scales and THE Flexibility of such armor would permit Women to carry their babes under their armor. On the surface Mail is also flexible, but since each ring is connected to another metal ring it takes a metal smith to add or remove mail links. With Scale Armor anyone who knew how to use a needle and thread could make the adjustment. Scale armor appears to be the Python Armor of the Alans, for it could be repaired and adjusted in the field, something you can NOT do with Plate, Mail or Segmented armor.

(g) Rome also used a third type of Armor, Segmented or Laminated Armor. It is a series of metal pieces that overlap and provide protection. When most people think of Roman Legionaries, they are pictured in this type of armor (and it is the one most used in Movies of the Roman Empire). The earliest it appears is 9 BC, and disappears by the third century AD (It should be noted, in the Third Century Roman Units moved from the Classical Roman Legion to the Late Roman Legion, the Rectangle Shield disappeared, replaced by a Cheaper to produce Circular one. The Short Roman Sword is replaced by a longer Sword and the emphasis changes from Close order Attack, to one of sitting in a defensive position and throw missiles at the enemy). It appears that laminated Armor was the best Armor of the Roman Army, beating out mail. The problems with this type of armor is that it requires a skill metal worker to make and repair. If a part fails, the armor is almost useless for a large section of the body is exposed. Thus this type of armor was expensive to produce, expensive to repair, useless if un-repaired, but looks good on parade. I have read reports that is was better then mail (and may have been used over mail to provide maximum protection).

(h) Scale and Mail Armor outlasted the Segmented armor. By the time segmented armor disappears the Roman Army is avoiding close combat and opting for stand off use of projection weapons. The Rectangular shield disappears about the same time apparently for the same reason (Change of tactics). This change of tactics may also reflect a desire to reduce costs. If soldiers are not killed in battle, you do not have to train a replacement. Forming a shield wall is a very efficient way to force the other side to attack you and face all of your projection weapons (Darts, Slings, Arrows etc). It also appears that after the third century the Roman Legions were facing increase number of armies equipped with cavalry only and old tactics were not effective against these cavalry forces (Forces using tactics similar to the what the Alans had used for centuries).

Here is a Roman Soldier in Mail Armor:


Here is a Roman Scale Armor (This is probably similar to what the Alans Wore):



Here is a Roman Soldier in Segmented Armor, the Classic Roman Legionnaire:

Thanks!

Am I the only one who noticed/deplored?

Men and women are different. They bodies are different and so is their dress. It is NOT sexists for a Woman to want to be seen as a Woman instead of a man. It is sexist for woman to be displayed as sexual objects ONLY. The older version tries to show a woman AND her body in a way people would see it when she was working or hunting (and I do NOT mean for a man).

Woman look good to men, men are attracted to woman. That is not sexists, that is life. Is she showing leg? is she showing her breasts? (Yes you see her curves in the older version, but a woman with curves is NOT a woman in heat). The older version is a WOMAN, just being a WOMAN does not make her some sort of sexual object. The later version removes the Bow moves the lines of her dress, and makes her hair fluffier so instead of a woman, you have a woman in heat.

The older version clearly shows a woman who wants to be seen as a woman, but also be seen as someone involved in society other then as a sexual toy. Yes, this sounds like a fine line to draw, but it is often the difference between seeing a woman as someone you can count on in a time of crisis or a woman you can count on for a quickie.

Although when it comes to that, the movie might have noted at some point that having to wear a long skirt could be a bit of an encumbrance when undertaking some of the more athletic activities she engaged in before she realized that what she really needed was to do some needlework.

For me the saddest thing is that Ms. Chapman does not have control over her creation and gets no royalties from sales of the character. Ms Chapman did an interview with CNN and told the anchors that because this is an animation she does not have any control over the character even though she created the character. She also said she does not get any share of the money Disney makes off of the character.

I think that rule should be changed. She should get royalties from the sells that come from this character. In addition, if she wants she should be able to have some control over what changes are made to the character she created.

and one having a bow & arrow, I don't see that big a difference between the two. The "old" one has messier curly hair and has a surprised look on her face? The "new" Merida hair isn't as ruffled and her dress is more elaborate. The drawing style is different?

the cut of the dress has gone from an ordinary kirtle style to an off-the-shoulder ballgown with cleavage (and a flashy gold trim to draw attention to said cleavage), not in keeping with the character's personality. The bow and arrows- i.e. weapons i.e. power symbols- have been removed completely, and instead of the quiver of arrows she has a fashionable, waistline-enhancing belt- also not in keeping with the character, since her archery was important to her. The figure has been changed to give her a narrower Barbie waistline. The forehead has been raised, the eyes slanted, the hairline altered and the hair restyled to make her look much older than the original character's 16 years.

Merida was/is unique in the Disney lineup in that she did not have a romantic interest, and was not married off at the end of the movie. She was a tomboy. The new rendering is not Merida, it's Scottish Barbie. I suspect they were trying to bring her visual more in line with the rest of the looking-for-marriage Disney girlies, but it goes directly against what the character represented. This is important because the target audience for "Brave" are tween girls and younger, and the message this sends to a girl that age is that just being plain you isn't good enough- you've got to have the sexy and the glitz, and give up the "boy" interests in favor of fitting in with the crowd. It's hard enough to be a young tomboy with a lot of traditionally "boy" interests without having that message thrown at you. There are already plenty of glitzy princesses; this character was intended to reach the girls who aren't into that, and she needs to be left the way she is.

Yechh. Same shit from Disney for fifty years.

Five decades of a successful business model is very difficult to change in the eyes of a huge corporation. Yes, Disney does perhaps end up inadvertently promoting gender stereotypes...but it sells, and it still sells extremely well. Until moms and little girls stop buying into it, Disney is not going to change their ways. And that's the key right there...Disney does not have an agenda to keep women down. That's not what they are trying to do. Disney is about making money. And they are giving what their customers want. Their movies and stories are reflecting society. And it is obviously America is still quite confused when it comes to gender.

A lot of Disney's most popular stories were written in the 1930s, 40s, and 50s, during a bit of a lull in the feminist and civil rights movements. Women got the right to vote in the 20s, but then the depression and the world wars put social progress on a hold until the 1960s. Most stories written in this era in and out of Hollywood promoted strong gender roles...they had strong male protagonists and the female characters at best provide support, but usually only act as a love interest.
Those plot lines are still dominant and popular today. Disney isn't the only culprit either. 80-90% of plot lines today feature a strong male protagonist.

The gender stereotypes is something American society still can't get passed. The man is still largely considered the "head of household" and is expected to provide. Boys are pressured to have good jobs and bring home the money. Women are pressured to have babies and be the primary caregivers to the children, even to a point of putting their careers and education on hold. Even though most men and women alike support gender neutrality in social theory, putting the belief into reality is proving to be extremely difficult even in the most liberal environments. Our movies and our literature is reflecting this struggle.

In the end, corporations are going to do what sells. Companies like Disney are not anti-female. They would support strong female characters if that is what their customers demand....at this point, they do not. I agree that they should promote more characters like Merida. And perhaps the success of Brave will provoke a move in that direction. But as most people learn, change comes very slowly in society as well as the corporate world.

Wouldn't hurt them to go with something new and obviously popular.

Signed the petition, thanks.

A lot of this stuff is not being marketed to males. The Disney Princess stuff is not marketed to boys, it's marketed to little girls. And girls gravitate to this narrow view of femininity like moths to a flame. And their mothers buy it. Disney knows this. You dont see many men obsessing over Cinderella, Snow White, or the Little Mermaid. Boys have very little interest in those characters. So those 1950s stereotypes in these characters are being kept alive by daughters and mothers. The princess line has become a major profitable success for Disney. And women made it so.

The tendency is to blame men for this...but men are not who is buying it. Guys want to see strong characters, male or female. If the girl can kick ass, guys will watch. After all, females have played central leads in video games, science fiction, and horror for many years. And those things are very popular with men.

But no its not unreasonable to request that Disney make a move to modernize their line of female characters. The company seems stuck in the fairy tale world when it comes to girls, while with boys the stories are modern. But ultimately, this current model is what's selling.

In the second, they made her look like Disney's favorite Princess... hot... goegeous... and did anybody notice the bigger hips on the second one. At least her boobs weren't shot out of her chest. That's not saying much. I know.