disneysnewgroove:

Disney movies in order of historical setting
(Excludes most of the package films. Some films, eg The Lion King, are impossible to pin down exactly and some, like Aladdin and Treasure Planet, are anachronistic, so these are estimations. A few have been split into 2 if there is more than one time period in the movie, and sequels have been put together.)
Zoom Info
disneysnewgroove:

Disney movies in order of historical setting
(Excludes most of the package films. Some films, eg The Lion King, are impossible to pin down exactly and some, like Aladdin and Treasure Planet, are anachronistic, so these are estimations. A few have been split into 2 if there is more than one time period in the movie, and sequels have been put together.)
Zoom Info
disneysnewgroove:

Disney movies in order of historical setting
(Excludes most of the package films. Some films, eg The Lion King, are impossible to pin down exactly and some, like Aladdin and Treasure Planet, are anachronistic, so these are estimations. A few have been split into 2 if there is more than one time period in the movie, and sequels have been put together.)
Zoom Info
disneysnewgroove:

Disney movies in order of historical setting
(Excludes most of the package films. Some films, eg The Lion King, are impossible to pin down exactly and some, like Aladdin and Treasure Planet, are anachronistic, so these are estimations. A few have been split into 2 if there is more than one time period in the movie, and sequels have been put together.)
Zoom Info
disneysnewgroove:

Disney movies in order of historical setting
(Excludes most of the package films. Some films, eg The Lion King, are impossible to pin down exactly and some, like Aladdin and Treasure Planet, are anachronistic, so these are estimations. A few have been split into 2 if there is more than one time period in the movie, and sequels have been put together.)
Zoom Info

disneysnewgroove:

Disney movies in order of historical setting

(Excludes most of the package films. Some films, eg The Lion King, are impossible to pin down exactly and some, like Aladdin and Treasure Planet, are anachronistic, so these are estimations. A few have been split into 2 if there is more than one time period in the movie, and sequels have been put together.)

Anonymous asked:

why are fencing stages so narrow like in kendo we have a fairly sizable circle so why the hell does fencing have like a grocery aisle

modernfencing:

Hello kendo anon - let me begin with the statement that kendo is super rad and I’ve really enjoyed it every time I’ve tried it. I have two answers to your question, and I’m going to start with the snarky one:

Why not have a narrow fencing strip? Why does baseball have a diamond? Why is hockey played on ice? Why are there only two hoops in basketball?  Why is kendo in a circle in the first place? It’s a sport. It has weird sport rules and weird sport simplifications. Also having a narrow strip makes it way easier to have a bunch of people fencing at once, so it’s a super convenient simplification.

Serious(ish) answer: I don’t know what the historical reason is, but in general having a narrow strip limits the action to forward and back (and some extremely judicious side-stepping), which makes the sport easier to referee, forces fencers to be better at distance and blade-work, and also makes it easier to focus on your opponent. It’s less realistic (maybe - I think sabre approximates the original horse charges pretty well at times), but again, sports. Sports = simplifications, and then they get really complex in really cool ways because of those simplifications.

(H/t to my teammates, who provided a lot of comments when I got this ask at practice.)

I was always under the impression that the strip emphasized linear attack, i.e. the thrust, as opposed to cutting/slashing attacks. Before firearms came around, people relied on armor for protection. A bladed weapon was really just a tool to get to the warrior inside the armor. Blocking with the blade was present but not very developed. But after firearms came about, armor tried to get thicker to offer more protection but it ended up becoming too heavy. Speed was a better defense than armor. However, bladed weapons were still useful because firearms were still very slow to reload. So then, no one had armor but still carried swords. People started to rely on the sword itself to defend against their opponent’s blows. The old ways of sword fighting did not apply so new ideas had to be developed. Many people debated on linear or circular styles. Linear ended up winning because it is faster due to a more direct path. In addition, stab wounds are more lethal than cuts. Lastly, it is aesthetically more pleasing; European nobles found it more dignified to kill each other by poking neat little holes into each other over hacking off limbs. We know linear styles were superior because they ended up killing off most if not all the circular styles. With a style that focuses on the thrust, there is no need for anything more than a strip. The most direct, and therefore the fastest attack, is a straight one. Disclaimer, I’m not a fencer (yet). I’m just a martial arts nerd and a history nerd.