Poll of the Day > Why is Conan the Barbarian never portrayed with a beard?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Shaving isn't very barbaric.
---

Zareth posted...

Shaving isn't very barbaric.

More than likely because Conan, if he had a beard, wouldn't have lasted long as a fighter. It's a historical fact that none of the Roman centurions and soldiers had beards because, in battle, that would be the first thing their opponent would grab in order to gain advantage. That's why all the Roman soldiers were clean shaven.

GastroFan posted...

Zareth posted...

Shaving isn't very barbaric.

More than likely because Conan, if he had a beard, wouldn't have lasted long as a fighter. It's a historical fact that none of the Roman centurions and soldiers had beards because, in battle, that would be the first thing their opponent would grab in order to gain advantage. That's why all the Roman soldiers were clean shaven.

That's completely not true. It was simply not considered distinguished.

The Romans in early times wore long hair and full beards, as did uncivilized peoples. Varro tells us that professional barbers first came to Rome in the year 300 B.C., but we know that the razor and shears were used by the Romans long before history begins. Pliny the Elder says that the Younger Scipio (died 129 B.C.) was the first Roman to shave every day, and the story may be true. People of wealth and position had the hair and beard kept in order by their own slaves; these slaves, if they were skillful barbers, brought high prices in the market. People of the middle class went to public barber shops, and gradually made them places of general resort for the idle and the gossiping. But in all periods the hair and beard were allowed was a sign of sorrow, and were the regular accompaniments of the mourning garb already mentioned. The very poor went usually unshaven and unshorn; this was the cheap and easy fashion.

Styles of wearing hair and beard varied with the years of the persons concerned and with the period. The hair of children, boys and girls alike, was allowed to grow long and hang around the neck and shoulders. When the boy assumed the togaof manhood, the long locks were cut off, sometimes with a good deal of formality, and under the Empire they were often made an offering to some deity.

In the classical period young men seem to have worn close-clipped beards; at least Cicero jeers at those who followed Catiline for wearing full beards, and on the other hand declares that their companions who could show no signs of beard on their faces were worse than effeminate. Mature men wore the hair cut short and the face shaved clean. Most of the portraits that have come down to us

show beardless men until well into the second century of our era, but after the time of Hadrian the full beard became fashionable.

His skin is too tough the hair cant get through
---

I'm always baffled by the idea of owning slaves, and then exposing your neck to one after giving them the sharpest knife imaginable.

Same way I'll never understand the mechanics of forced oral sex.
---

ASlaveObeys posted...

GastroFan posted...

Zareth posted...

Shaving isn't very barbaric.

More than likely because Conan, if he had a beard, wouldn't have lasted long as a fighter. It's a historical fact that none of the Roman centurions and soldiers had beards because, in battle, that would be the first thing their opponent would grab in order to gain advantage. That's why all the Roman soldiers were clean shaven.

That's completely not true. It was simply not considered distinguished.

The Romans in early times wore long hair and full beards, as did uncivilized peoples. Varro tells us that professional barbers first came to Rome in the year 300 B.C., but we know that the razor and shears were used by the Romans long before history begins. Pliny the Elder says that the Younger Scipio (died 129 B.C.) was the first Roman to shave every day, and the story may be true. People of wealth and position had the hair and beard kept in order by their own slaves; these slaves, if they were skillful barbers, brought high prices in the market. People of the middle class went to public barber shops, and gradually made them places of general resort for the idle and the gossiping. But in all periods the hair and beard were allowed was a sign of sorrow, and were the regular accompaniments of the mourning garb already mentioned. The very poor went usually unshaven and unshorn; this was the cheap and easy fashion.

Styles of wearing hair and beard varied with the years of the persons concerned and with the period. The hair of children, boys and girls alike, was allowed to grow long and hang around the neck and shoulders. When the boy assumed the togaof manhood, the long locks were cut off, sometimes with a good deal of formality, and under the Empire they were often made an offering to some deity.

In the classical period young men seem to have worn close-clipped beards; at least Cicero jeers at those who followed Catiline for wearing full beards, and on the other hand declares that their companions who could show no signs of beard on their faces were worse than effeminate. Mature men wore the hair cut short and the face shaved clean. Most of the portraits that have come down to us

show beardless men until well into the second century of our era, but after the time of Hadrian the full beard became fashionable.

PO you forgot to switch to your other account

His skin and hair are so tough, he shaves to sharpen his sword.

Duh!
---

Were not all cimmerians, who descended from Atlantis beardless?

Think it was explained in the original books, been so long since I read them though.
---

WhiskeyDisk posted...

I'm always baffled by the idea of owning slaves, and then exposing your neck to one after giving them the sharpest knife imaginable.

Same way I'll never understand the mechanics of forced oral sex.

Honestly, many slaves in Rome weren't treated badly at all. I bet slaves allowed to shave and cut the hair of their masters probably had it pretty good and wouldn't be likely to ruin that.

He has a beard in the scene at the end of the Conan the Barbarian.

ASlaveObeys posted...

WhiskeyDisk posted...

I'm always baffled by the idea of owning slaves, and then exposing your neck to one after giving them the sharpest knife imaginable.

Same way I'll never understand the mechanics of forced oral sex.

Honestly, many slaves in Rome weren't treated badly at all. I bet slaves allowed to shave and cut the hair of their masters probably had it pretty good and wouldn't be likely to ruin that.

What a fitting username you have to go with that statement. I'm kidding of course as I understand what you are saying. Slavery is always bad but not all slave owners where the same calibur of a shitty person.
---

MICHALECOLE posted...

PO you forgot to switch to your other account

No, if it was me, I would have pointed out that he's only known as Conan "the Barbarian" because of the Marvel comics version of the character in the 70s and the movie version in the 80s.

Original Recipe Conan was usually referred to only as "Conan the Cimmerian" or "Conan of Cimmeria". And in spite of the fact that actual historical Cimmeria was somewhere in Russia, fantasy Cimmeria was supposed to be in ancient Ireland and Conan's people were basically supposed to be ancient Gaels mixed with the blood of Atlantis.

He was never really a "barbarian", per se. He didn't wander around topless (he usually wore full armor), or have trouble speaking (that was AHNOLD's fault - book Conan was actually pretty intelligent and well-spoken). By his 30s he was basically a general, and by his 40s he was a king. And he'd usually adapt to the culture of whatever nation he happened to be in at the time, not stubbornly cling to his own culture or act like a savage (even if "Savage Sword of Conan" was another of the Marvel comics in the 70s).

Conan as written in the original stories was more than cultured enough to be willing to shave, groom, and generally keep himself clean whenever he can. He might start to look a bit scruffy if he's been traveling through the wilderness for a while, but given the opportunity he'd clean himself up like any other civilized warrior.


---

Yeah, if you have not read the original books, you really should, they are great.

It's been eons, but....I thought he was initially a thief actually (or some kind of thief/fighter hybrid). I do not remember him ever having to shave in the books though. He was certainly able to talk normally and didn't act like a "barbarian" though at all. In fact, in the tribes he came from (the group of "barbarians" I guess), I think the Cimmerians were the most cultured etc.

I actually need to re-read them again it's been like 30 years now. I owned them still till about 10 years ago when I donated most of my books to a library. *sigh*.

Probably available at the local library here though, so I can just get em that way.

Anyway, the books are WAY better then the movies.
---

wolfy42 posted...

Yeah, if you have not read the original books, you really should, they are great.

They're also tied into the Lovecraft mythos, so if you're a literary hipster you can enjoy them on those grounds alone!



wolfy42 posted...

It's been eons, but....I thought he was initially a thief actually (or some kind of thief/fighter hybrid).

He was a pirate for a while, but the stories kind of minimize that, because he's supposed to be a relatively honorable warrior, which becomes sort of awkward if you have him robbing and murdering people.

For the most part, he only kills "bad" people who absolutely deserve it in most of the stories.

If we were going to boil him down to D&D classes, he's definitely a Fighter with a few levels in either Ranger or Rogue (or both). What he isn't, in any way, is a Barbarian.



wolfy42 posted...

Anyway, the books are WAY better then the movies.

The Dark Horse comics from the early 2000s or so were pretty good as well. They were either directly based on the original stories or influenced by them, so they were more like what Conan is supposed to be than the public perception of what he is post-Arnold.


---