Mike S.
A Fixture
You DO realize that his left foot is sporting foot armor which is modeled in a stylized foot complete with toenails etc. embossed on it. His real foot is visible underneath.
Andrea Miniatures,New Release
- Thread starter maximodecimo
- Start date
Help Support planetFigure:
You DO realize that his left foot is sporting foot armor which is modeled in a stylized foot complete with toenails etc. embossed on it. His real foot is visible underneath.
Colin_Fraser
PlanetFigure Supporter
Nicely rendered and I like Romans but all I am seeing is Lord of the Rings - Ranger. It just doesn't look 'Roman' to me.
Colin
Colin
Anders Heintz
A Fixture
Its a very nicely sculpted figure with a ton of character and detail to paint.
Out of curiosity though, what is it about cloaked figures that people always love? Especially if they have the hood up, like this figure and another similarily looking knight by Pegaso? Im not knocking the figure, just curious!
Out of curiosity though, what is it about cloaked figures that people always love? Especially if they have the hood up, like this figure and another similarily looking knight by Pegaso? Im not knocking the figure, just curious!
Hola!!
Ernesto el piè izquierdo es lo que salia da bajo el "scutum"...y la que ves es una proteccion!
ZORRO !!! jejejeje
Ernesto el piè izquierdo es lo que salia da bajo el "scutum"...y la que ves es una proteccion!
ZORRO !!! jejejeje
megroot
A Fixture
Well guys,
The figure is not so accurate as some mentioned. At MedRom are some guys who really know alot of the Roman Empire. They have alot of critism and comments on this figure.
The painted figure is burn to the ground with: Hollywood Roman.
Here is the link:
http://forums.delphiforums.com/medrenfig/messages/?msg=2886.1
Marc
The figure is not so accurate as some mentioned. At MedRom are some guys who really know alot of the Roman Empire. They have alot of critism and comments on this figure.
The painted figure is burn to the ground with: Hollywood Roman.
Here is the link:
http://forums.delphiforums.com/medrenfig/messages/?msg=2886.1
Marc
Jason W.
A Fixture
I'm guessing that the cloak/hood adds "mystery" to the figure. Almost fantasy. If you look at fantasy/sci-fi characters alot of them have that cloak thing going. I think it's cool. Accurate? Well, leave that to the people "in the know" to debate.
It will be a stunner on the show tables no matter what anyone says.
Jason
Contrary to some of the views expressed above, I think that this is an awful figure - not because of the sculpting but because of the woeful research that is evident. I'm afraid that this manufacturer is prone to this sort of thing. Here are just a few of the errors that I can see.
To begin with, the lorica segmentata armour is poorly - and very inaccurately - represented. These plates were about 1-1.5mm thick. In roughly 1/20th scale, this translates to something less than the thickness of a sheet of paper. Here we have something more like Aztec temple steps. There are only four girdle plates, with a fifth beneath the belt. There should be either seven or eight. The top plate is erroneous on Corbridge armour, it was not twice the depth (that came in with the Newstead variant). The upper chest plates are far too small and are at the wrong angle - they should meet flush (i.e. edge to edge) - as shown here they would tear the straps out. The shoulder guards are wrong - they graduated steadily not in the irregular manner shown here. Then we have the ridiculous mail glove on the right hand. Two greave plates? No, only one on the left leg. What is that object on the left foot? Why is the sword scabbard shown with a fretted surface? They used plates for these with a cut-out decoration. The paenula cloak was not fastened this way - the Romans did not favour buttons but used either brooches or toggles to close garments.
There are plenty of other decent figures out there of Roman subjects that are properly researched. This one is a waste of money. It is well sculpted but there is no real excuse for this sort of inaccuracy these days. "Close enough is good enough" does not cut the mustard when it comes to parting with my hard-earned cash!
To begin with, the lorica segmentata armour is poorly - and very inaccurately - represented. These plates were about 1-1.5mm thick. In roughly 1/20th scale, this translates to something less than the thickness of a sheet of paper. Here we have something more like Aztec temple steps. There are only four girdle plates, with a fifth beneath the belt. There should be either seven or eight. The top plate is erroneous on Corbridge armour, it was not twice the depth (that came in with the Newstead variant). The upper chest plates are far too small and are at the wrong angle - they should meet flush (i.e. edge to edge) - as shown here they would tear the straps out. The shoulder guards are wrong - they graduated steadily not in the irregular manner shown here. Then we have the ridiculous mail glove on the right hand. Two greave plates? No, only one on the left leg. What is that object on the left foot? Why is the sword scabbard shown with a fretted surface? They used plates for these with a cut-out decoration. The paenula cloak was not fastened this way - the Romans did not favour buttons but used either brooches or toggles to close garments.
There are plenty of other decent figures out there of Roman subjects that are properly researched. This one is a waste of money. It is well sculpted but there is no real excuse for this sort of inaccuracy these days. "Close enough is good enough" does not cut the mustard when it comes to parting with my hard-earned cash!
Christosjager
A Fixture
No Marc the figure is accurate,the only objection might be for the chainmail glove because we have no references for such a glove (just only in use for gladiators) but we know that in the east the Parthians were using such armour and also think that if such of gloves used, it have been used ONLY in the Dacian wars thats why it's difficult to have references but as I'm seeing better it's a leather glove with a piece of chainmail stitched on it.The cloak is also right and it's called "paenula" but I disagree with the purple color.My only objection is for the sandals I believe that the boots are more accurate and don't forget that in war each soldier adapts for his own protection and comfort many things.
megroot
A Fixture
Christos,
Read the comment of Caratacus. If i read his comment i think he know's what he is talking about.
Marc
Read the comment of Caratacus. If i read his comment i think he know's what he is talking about.
Marc
Christosjager
A Fixture
Marc I insist,he is not a common roman legionary,he is a soldier of the first lines of the legions at the Dacian wars(just a few hundrends,but characteristic),as for the thickness of the segmetata I really can't measure it,I don't disagree with Caratacus but it looks good to me.
Christos - the thickness of the armour plates is a common error on models. It's even worse on 54mm figures! It would be far better if the sculptor simply modelled a plain and smoothe chest/back and then scribed in some lines to represent the armour plates. They really were only a mm or two in thickess - there are enough of them in the archaeological record to be sure of this. I assure you that, even if it 'looks' OK - it isn't. The Corbridge finds make this very clear - for once we have complete sets of something that we can be sure was actually used by the soldiers.
It's a curious fact that the contemporary Adamklissi monument in Romania, which was raised after the Dacian Wars, does not show a single instance of lorica segmentata being worn. All the figures represented on more than 50 panels wear only hamata (mail) or squamata (scale) armour. The Trajanic Column in Rome, however, shows the legionary troops wearing this (segmentata) armour while the auxiliaries wear mail or scale armours!
There is no real evidence to suggest that the front rank of a legion wore the plate armour. Since each soldier had to buy his own equipment, weapons, clothing, etc., there is no chance that we would see such a 'uniform' thing as a complete rank of men wearing only one type of armour.
There's another fault on this model that I've only just noticed. The sword is the wrong shape in the blade. By this time the tapering legionary sword (the so-called Pompeii type) had been replaced by the ('Mainz' or 'Fulham') type, where the sides of the blade were parallel and there was a point that was an obtuse angle, not acute. Presumably this was because the thin point broke off too often in combat. The wavy edged blade shown in this model is neither - more fantasy!
It's a curious fact that the contemporary Adamklissi monument in Romania, which was raised after the Dacian Wars, does not show a single instance of lorica segmentata being worn. All the figures represented on more than 50 panels wear only hamata (mail) or squamata (scale) armour. The Trajanic Column in Rome, however, shows the legionary troops wearing this (segmentata) armour while the auxiliaries wear mail or scale armours!
There is no real evidence to suggest that the front rank of a legion wore the plate armour. Since each soldier had to buy his own equipment, weapons, clothing, etc., there is no chance that we would see such a 'uniform' thing as a complete rank of men wearing only one type of armour.
There's another fault on this model that I've only just noticed. The sword is the wrong shape in the blade. By this time the tapering legionary sword (the so-called Pompeii type) had been replaced by the ('Mainz' or 'Fulham') type, where the sides of the blade were parallel and there was a point that was an obtuse angle, not acute. Presumably this was because the thin point broke off too often in combat. The wavy edged blade shown in this model is neither - more fantasy!
