| Paint Pig | 01 Feb 2012 6:07 a.m. PST |
Hesse-Kassoulet is getting some new recruits link
In the next two weeks maps and royal characters will be introduced. thanks for looking |
| abdul666lw | 01 Feb 2012 1:25 p.m. PST |
'Summer dress' on the right, or do you intend to send an expeditionary force to the Indies ? The Eureka 'Sandra' range link is known for introducing 'navel wargaming' (so familiar to Fantasy players) to the Lace Wars era (right):
Though I confess I never saw one so
daringly painted: summer dress? Painters generally interpret the raised line at the top of the thigh as a crease of the breech cloth
.  |
| freecloud | 03 Feb 2012 3:15 a.m. PST |
Suspenders – they neeeeed suspenders to keep the gaiters up. |
| Paint Pig | 03 Feb 2012 4:47 a.m. PST |
The next conversion has suspenders and stockings, these girls are clearly wear CFM boots or 'thigh highs' or as I like to call them, 'puss in boots'! |
| Paint Pig | 03 Feb 2012 4:50 a.m. PST |
Painters generally interpret the raised line at the top of the thigh as a crease of the breech cloth Not very imaginative painters then?  |
| abdul666lw | 03 Feb 2012 9:13 a.m. PST |
The problem is
women did not wear pants, by then. They appeared at the end of the 1st half of the 19th C. in a very frou-frou appearance to be worn by little girls, whose skirts and dressed were becoming shorter than those of pubescent women. The first adult women to wear pants were the dancers of French Cancan and the like -for obvious reasons. Of course this applied to woman in feminine dress: but seemingly men in breeches or trousers did not wear underpants before the 2nd half of the 19th C
. So
are you audacious enough to be historically accurate? TMP link |
| abdul666lw | 04 Feb 2012 2:59 a.m. PST |
The 'lightly clad' miss looks funny (not a bad thing, let me add!) since the *white* pants, because of their shape, really look like a 'Pampers®' diaper. The miniature would look more
adult and military (and less 'Oops, no time to put my breeches on') with pants of uniform color: green like the breeches they are standing for, or 'facing' red? Palace Guard units -such as the French and Prussian Gardes du Corps- indeed has 'indoors' uniform quite different from the 'field' ones.
|
| abdul666lw | 05 Feb 2012 6:56 a.m. PST |
Then, beware: with red pants they would look like *this*:
|
| arthur1815 | 07 Feb 2012 10:08 a.m. PST |
abdul666lw makes a very pertinent point about 18th century undergarments. I would also suggest that the documented cases of such 'she-soldiers' as Hannah Snell, who was able to conceal her sex until wounded, demonstrates that men, too, did not often appear in states of total or semi-nakedness before their comrades. Assuming then, that the mores of 18th century ImagiNations bear some resemblance to those of reality, it would be highly unlikely for female soldiers to display their knickers – or lack thereof! – to all and sundry, although it is just possible that hot weather might persuade them to leave off waistcoats, chemises and stays under their heavy woollen uniform coats. I would suggest therefore, that the right hand figure should really have been painted to suggest she was wearing breeches or 'mosquito trowsers'. One could also speculate that, in an alternative world with female soldiers, some form of underpants would soon have been devised to prevent chafing by the rather unnecessary thigh boots
|
| Jeroen72 | 07 Feb 2012 11:24 a.m. PST |
Nice Zardozzian red pants :P |
| Paint Pig | 07 Feb 2012 7:23 p.m. PST |
|
| abdul666lw | 07 Feb 2012 10:25 p.m. PST |
Yellow in front, brown in the back?  |
| Musketier on the March | 08 Feb 2012 7:02 a.m. PST |
Ah well – he was young and needed the money
|
| Paint Pig | 08 Feb 2012 9:23 a.m. PST |
Ah well – he was young and needed the money
No amount of money
|