italy was THIS close to become a superpower again in the renaissance.

italy was THIS close to become a superpower again in the renaissance. fortunately leonardo was only seen as a good painter with weird hobbies

  1. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    imagine if he was a bad painter with weird hobbies

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      yeah

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        No wonder he was rejected from art school, what a fucking mess

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Sad part is there was potential there, but the art scene was never going to accept him

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >potential
            No, he's shit.

            that's the fucking point of trying to enter in an art school. you know, to learn

            It wasn't an 'art school' but the fine arts academy. You don't apply to it as an amateur, it's for the best of the best.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          that's the fucking point of trying to enter in an art school. you know, to learn

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Not back then it wasn’t, it was full pretentious bullshit back then, and it’s only gotten worse.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            When you apply for any performing arts programs in American universities you have to submit a portfolio and they can and will reject you if they don’t think it will work.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Not back then it wasn’t, it was full pretentious bullshit back then, and it’s only gotten worse.

          https://i.imgur.com/OH3thA7.jpg

          reminder that he got canned for making a realistic albeit boring painting while other professional "artists" made money out of shit like this

          Breechloading guns weren't the issue but propulsion definately. That design would get stuck in the slightest furrow and would probably move slower than a man can walk - if it could move at all.
          [...]
          >want to learn high school math
          >appy to MIT

          >potential
          No, he's shit.

          [...]
          It wasn't an 'art school' but the fine arts academy. You don't apply to it as an amateur, it's for the best of the best.

          When you apply for any performing arts programs in American universities you have to submit a portfolio and they can and will reject you if they don’t think it will work.

          You can look up some of the pieces that passed back then, most are worse than Hitler's.
          He was rejected based on a technicality of a missing document the first time and the second time because he was already rejected the first time and they weren't into second chances back then.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        reminder that he got canned for making a realistic albeit boring painting while other professional "artists" made money out of shit like this

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Well, both of these paintings suck but the one you posted sort of manages to convey some familiar mood of a summer evening. Hitler's painting conveys absolutely nothing, it's actually remarkable how soulless it is.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            ??? A grade schooler could paint better. Fuck me the art world is retarded.

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              Agreed, look at how bad Hitler fucked up the windows on the right. Grade school level fuck up, Adolf

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              >I don't get it so everyone else is wrong

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Art is representation of a person’s inner world. Hitler’s painting may be sovlless and boring but it’s realistic and organized

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            this anon gets what art is about.
            Not necessarily the technical skill but the ability to evoke emotions in the perceiving person.
            +1

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >Hitler's painting conveys absolutely nothing, it's actually remarkable how soulless it is.

            this anon gets what art is about.
            Not necessarily the technical skill but the ability to evoke emotions in the perceiving person.
            +1

            t. Butthurt retards who never lived in an old neighbourhood

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          He was unluckily born into a time when painting had to do different and weird shit because photography drove it down a existential identity crisis. Also, his realistic style wasn’t really the hot new movement at that time. Of course he got revenge when he came into power, gathered all art that he didn’t like, and mocked them in a national museum he set up.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          It's not realistic though. His perspective is all fucked up. If you want to paint realistic you need the actual skill to back it up which he severely lacked.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Funny thing is that the guy who painted that picture probably could paint very good realistic art, he just chose not to.
            I know a guy who's a semi-accomplished sculptor in my area. At first at was dismissive if his skills because to me most of his art looked like pieces of drift wood he doodled with for a while and then put them on a postument.
            But then he showed me a marble bust of his gf he made as a gift for her and honestly it wouldn't look out of place in the Capitoline Museum.
            Modern art people are actually well trained in the classical methods, or at least the older generations used to be.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          So funny seeing neo Nazis/wehraboos try to defend Hitler’s art skills of all things

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            not a nazi, not a wehraboo, but his skills aren't bad even if his work is boring and not particularly remarkable. pretending like what his paintings lack is a deficit of ability is missing the point a bit.

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              also stands to be clarified, this anon:

              https://i.imgur.com/OH3thA7.jpg

              reminder that he got canned for making a realistic albeit boring painting while other professional "artists" made money out of shit like this

              is retarded

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Hitlers painting remind of those images they put on as box-art for scale models. Equally autistic, kek.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Just a guy who needs a little practice

        https://i.imgur.com/OH3thA7.jpg

        reminder that he got canned for making a realistic albeit boring painting while other professional "artists" made money out of shit like this

        A product of nepotism. I painted shit like this when I was 5 but since I have no rich art school connections I am not a pseudo intellectual famous painter

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >muh realistic
        >that perspective
        pseuds would defend this lmoa

  2. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    It's not actually viable as a tank though, it's a weird armored chariot useful on perfectly flat ground and that's about it

    absolute minimum tech level for a tank that actually performs the tactical functions of a tank (breakthrough and exploitation) is probably right around 1900. You need at minimum breach loaded cannons and internal combustion engines.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      let's not pretend we're looking at a real design. leonardo probably drew it bored while eating lunch. the concept is there, it's obvious that he didn't put too much effort in ironing out the main weaknesses. i'm sure that if some wacky noble wanted to actually built that thing he would've hired a team of war engineers and figure out a way to make it viable. after all how hard is to figure out tracks?

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Even if we allowed the invention of tracks hundreds of years early you're still lacking an effective power source. No, a horse on a treadmill is not effective.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          I mean if we’re inventing tracks early, why not a steam engine?

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >why didnt they just invent a tank
            I didnt think you were this retarded.

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              I didn’t think you’d take a joke thread seriously like a moron

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            because a steam engine, especially a primitive Renaissance one, wouldn't have the power to weight ratio required

            the first "good" tank engine was the Liberty V12, you can make do with less but the exploitation part of breakthrough and exploitation requires more than a walking pace

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              Breechloading guns weren't the issue but propulsion definately. That design would get stuck in the slightest furrow and would probably move slower than a man can walk - if it could move at all.
              [...]
              >want to learn high school math
              >appy to MIT

              A slowly repositioning bunker could have been useful in certain Renaissance combat scenarios

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                sure, the Hussite War Wagons were neat, but they weren't tanks

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >could have been
                it was

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagon_fort

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                I can't think of a singe application. It would be a prime target for field artillery and would still get stuck on all kinds of terrain.
                Wagon forts were inherently more mobile than that thing would ever be.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Renaissance Artillery was tremendously inaccurate and low velocity. Often their naval guns were unable to penetrate enemy hulls outside of point blank range.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Any sources for that?
                To my knowledge naval gunnery was held at much closer ranges because a) both ships move and thus it is harder to aim and b) ship hulls were thicker than most structures on land.
                That depiction here is from 1502 and the barrel length alone indicates that it would be a relatively accurate piece.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Because they have neither the physics knowledge to design one nor the manufacturing techniques to build one.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            I can’t believe how many people can’t see this was a joke

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >Breachloader

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Breechloading guns weren't the issue but propulsion definately. That design would get stuck in the slightest furrow and would probably move slower than a man can walk - if it could move at all.

      that's the fucking point of trying to enter in an art school. you know, to learn

      >want to learn high school math
      >appy to MIT

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      let's not pretend we're looking at a real design. leonardo probably drew it bored while eating lunch. the concept is there, it's obvious that he didn't put too much effort in ironing out the main weaknesses. i'm sure that if some wacky noble wanted to actually built that thing he would've hired a team of war engineers and figure out a way to make it viable. after all how hard is to figure out tracks?

      it's not even a working design yet. Look at the drive cranks. They're linked to the wheels so that wheels on the same side would spin in opposite directions.

      Of course, the real problem is that the whole thing is a big target and the wooden planks aren't going to stand up to cannon fire.

  3. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Could have had planes too

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      dont think those wings could generate lift

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >build this
      >put gf into it
      >many sexy times

  4. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Viability of this particular design aside, people should remember that there were examples of mechanisms and devices that were way ahead of their time in history, but existed only as curiosities because they took insane amount of meticulous craftsmanship and there was no way to introduce them at scale.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Materials, machining and the panoply of industrial wonders that make dreams reality takes a very long time and fortunate interactions to develop.

  5. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    You know you aren't talking about a unified country at the time, right?

  6. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Not without good metallurgy they couldnt. advances in steel making made it possible to develop steam power and smokeless guns, not because people couldnt figure it out before the 19th century.

  7. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    why didn't he just try to apply to a different art school bros

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Art world at his time was very institutional and a lot of the market on what’s “hot and in” were narrow and dictated by the institution, so even if he applied and got into another art school, he wouldn’t really be turning heads with his art after he got out.

  8. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >italy was THIS close to become a superpower again
    Lolno, you just get this with tanks

  9. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >shitaly

  10. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    everytime I read a thread on PrepHole my IQ drops 30 points

    why do I still come here ?

  11. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    You travel back in time and have the support of an extremely rich noble (who was a time traveler himself who decided to stay), how do you improve the metallurgy of the time and help kickstart the industrial revolution?

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      I don't

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      The industrial revolution and it's consequences were a disaster for the human race.

  12. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Italians were the first to effectively use cannons in Europe, and had the best armour of the late medieval period. Even machine guns would not help them, their eternal problem was that they hated each other more than French and Spanish. As soon as someone would be driving tanks around, someone else would be selling them to his neighbours.

  13. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >italy was THIS close to become a superpower again
    >again

    shitalians are not Romans, Romans were a tribe living in north west Italy and 95% of people living in Italy righ now were just slaves of the aforementionned

  14. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    So tanks are just received technology from aliens right? There is like 5 or 6 different iterations in history before ww1 where someone tried to create them out of the blue

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >"guys, what if we put people inside a big armored house on wheels?"
      It really doesn't seem like a far-fetched concept anon.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        It is though in a time before motorised vehicles exist.
        Also there is a part in the bible where the gnomish god loses against iron chariots. Multiple hindu gods have chariots as well.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          >It is though in a time before motorised vehicles exist.
          Not that much
          >Also there is a part in the bible
          Why are we bringing this up?
          >where the gnomish god loses against iron chariots
          Firstly, the word "garden gnome" doesn't appear in the Bible until the time of Ezra-Nehemiah in the postexilic period, when the remaining people of Southern Israel (or "Judah") were returned by the Persians. They even note many of their people have no records of their families before the exile and they have no way to verify that they're even the same people as them.
          Secondly, God just doesn't help them defeat these charioteers, they went and lost by themselves. There's plenty of times when the Israelites attribute their own tribal ways of thought to God simply to justify their own actions anyway.
          Thirdly, wouldn't the idea of an armored chariot or war elephant just reinforce the idea that men have had the idea of armored vehicles sporting ranged weaponry for a long time?

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >Why are we bringing this up?
            Because it implies there is some alien element to these "chariots of iron" that even god could not overcome them.
            It certainly makes no sense in the literal reading.

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              >it implies there is some alien element to these "chariots of iron" that even god could not overcome them.
              You're ignoring a very big hole in that theory of yours since nowhere in the text did it say God even helped them fight against these chariots. There's plenty of examples throughout Joshua where the Israelites fail to drive out the Canaanites, such as at Jerusalem, which wasn't taken until David's time. You're just making shit up without bothering to read and understand the full text, cherrypicking verses and spewing off topic schizo shit that belongs on 4chan or PrepHole more than anything.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                It says the Lord was with them in the examt same sentence dude.
                If you don't believe in a theory that's fine but don't just make shit up to validate whatever christlarp sentiment caused this melty.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Oh shut the fuck up you moron, YOU brought this crap up, not me. Keep that in mind next time you want to be a smug little cunt.
                And just because of that, I'm going to post what you're talking about.
                >Since the LORD was with Judah, he gained possession of the mountain region. Yet he could not dislodge those who lived on the plain, because they had iron chariots.
                Of note here, the Hebrew doesn't use the phrase "could not" and is instead more directly translated to "there was no driving out", meaning their faith was likely cowed by the sight of these chariots and God left them. There's plenty of other explanations to be had here that aren't "the Palestinians had muh ayylmao tanks", just like the explanation for an antiquated name for Siberia on an old map isn't a mudflood.
                Go back to PrepHole or take your meds.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                The phrase "The lord was with them" is a lot like "Luck/fate/whatever was on my side" it's something you say after you're successful.

  15. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    once the Da Vinci tank is mass-produced, we'll put an end to the Kingdom of France in no time

  16. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    That mission sucked dick in Assassins Creed 2

  17. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >Italy
    >15th century
    choose one
    Italy didn't exist until the 19th century

  18. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    you deserve to fucking die.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >you lost
      >the sturmgewher is a piece of garbage
      >you lost
      >I'm whiter than you
      >L+ratio+seethe+cope+shart

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        idgaf kys

  19. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    italy did not exist during the renaissance

  20. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Would be extremely easy to copy so no.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *