Ares Mythologic

[Guy]

A new release has come from Ares Mythologic.

Persian Cavalryman
54mm white metal
sculpted and painted by Jose Jarque

Ares' web site

 

[dario966]

interesting subject and very colorful indeed - well illustrated in several Ospreys and other publications.
I would like to know what archeological and other sources the Ares sculptor and painter used for this rather fanciful representation of a generic Persian cavalryman. I also would liek to know what time period could this piece reperesent?... which century of the Achaemenid Empire?

 

[Dani A.]

Hello,

I would advise you put these questions in Spanish forum "Lilliput". José Jarque, the sculptor of this figure (who is the firm's owner too) is an active member. Maybe he will be able to answer. My guess is that the figure is directly based on a plate in a very old (and outdated) Osprey book, The Greek and Persian Wars 500-323 B.C.. The plate figure is named just "Persian Cavalry". The only differences I can see are that in the plate, the warrior is mounted and armed with spears, instead of being on foot and armed with sword and axe. Even the painting scheme is almost identical.

Now that you mention it, there is a incresing tendency to label commercial releases with very generic time period references (like "14th Century Danish Knight"), which are of course absurd; or none at all, like this Persian figure.

Dani

 

[JJM2]

Hello to all, Hello David, indeed David is right in saying from where the design of Osprey was removed, in that design of the book is mounted to horse, I wanted to make it on foot because those of cavalry also lower of the horse sometimes, and the one of the axe was a Persian very tipica weapon, but sincerely I request pardon if I have not represented it in some case correctly, I approach my excuses to you, I have wanted to make an attractive figure and simple, this presonaje carried a leather armor, if you wish the book of which David explains is of which ví the figure, I feel my English poor man but I write fatal in this language, and I really hope that you like this figure, a hug

 

[Dani A.]

¡Hola José, encantado de verte por aquí! Por cierto, es Daniel, no David...

those of cavalry also lower of the horse sometimes

Of course, cavalrymen are not always riding a horse . I didn't say otherwise. It could be you have misunderstood me. I just pointed out the few differences between your figure and that on the plate, while making a conjecture about its source - conjecture which has proven correct. I have not adressed the figure's accuracy or lack of it. I just mentioned Osprey book was, as I see it, outdated.

Naturalmente, los soldados de caballería no están siempre montando a caballo. Yo no he dicho lo contrario. Seguramente me has malinterpretado. Yo solamente he señalado las pocas diferencias entre tu figura y la lámina, mientras hacía una conjetura sobre la referencia empleada - conjetura que ha resultado ser correcta. No he tratado la cuestión de la corrección, o falta de corrección, de la figura. Simplemente mencioné que el libro de Osprey es, a mi parecer, obsoleto.

Saludos,

Dani

 

[JJM2]

Hola Daniel, perdona por lo del nombre, me alegro de encontrarte pues te había seguido en muchas ocasiones en lilliput, tienes razón en cuanto al libro, aunque la lamina me encanto y no me atreví con el caballo

Hello Daniel, it pardons by the one of the name, I am glad of encontrarte because it had followed to you in many
occasions in lilliput, you are right as far as the book, although the drawing enchanted to me and I did not dare with the
horse.

Best Regards.
thanks

 

[dario966]

Hola amigos,
after notifying a friend who is a scholar on the subject of the Persian empires of the past, he had looked at the Ares website and this post at the Planetfigure, and wrote the following (edited):
Interesting reconstruction!
....this man looks Arab and as such the physionomy is wrong for the Arab invasion did not occur until 637 AD.
The colors and costume design (esp. the Shelvar and boots) are not too bad.
What is in error:
a) the Shield: the shape and esp. its motif - the motif is fictional. No such motif at Persopolis, also unseen in any North Iranian designs (e.g. Scythian, Saka) nor even later in Parthian and Sassanid.
b) not sure about the size of the axe-blade but it seems too large.
c) there is something at his side what might be a mace and if it in fact is a mace then it appears similar to post-islamic Iranian samples - more than 1000 years later than the figure portrayed ( if this is a sword -akinakes - at this guy's side than it should be on his right side)
Finally this helmet does look pretty good and it is definitely late Achaemenid.

saludos y Gracias por las respuestas
Dario

 

[Calvin]

I don't like at all 'wow! how cool!' threads, but not sure if those like that are still worse.

For the historical knowledge I have, almost the 50% of the works on this site are historically incorrect (and note that mine is on the top of the list), but it seems to me that this site is dedicated to the world of scale figure, not historical reconstruction. I can live with it because it's just an hobby, but there are some people who take it as an holy war.

Some people are interested in historical reconstruction while other in the artistic side, favouring the aesthetics against the accuracy. That's all, talking about what is the right way, is like talking about the sex of angels. It's just an hobby. So I DO NOT WANT to talk once again of that topic, but just about the attitude you have.

It's really amazing to see a show of such historically erudition against some well selected targets, with a such charge of irony and snobbery, without caring about the consequences (for the target).

Personally I think Joaquin Palacios one of the best sculptors ever seen, his vision of the whole figure (anatomy, pose, etc.), in my opinion, can be compared to the sculpts of the Italian Renaissance, but if something is wrong, is wrong. What about the Andrea's Fighting Knight ? I read your post:

Senor,
me lo quito el sombrero de mi cabeza
This is an amazing work, great scultping and just as great is the pictoral documentation showing the sculpting process.
I love ancient and medieval subjects so this is dear to my own heart, and makes me wanna work harder on my own pieces.
Gracias por la leccion en la escultura de las miniaturas

But after reading it over and over, I can't see any reference to his historical exactness, like the notes you make about the figure of Jose Jarque. I'm missing something ?
It's strange, really strange, because the Andrea's figure is titled in the most generical manner ever seen, just like the one from Ares, but in your reply I can't see any reference to that.
Are you absolutely sure that such figure (the Fighting Knight) is historically correct ? It seems so, because you made no reference to that aspect, but I have some doubt about his historical exactness. Where must be placed such figure (the Fighting Knight), on the battlefield or on a tournment ? His armour, his sword, his axe, are the right one ? I miss any comment about that from your post.

Also, I miss you on all the threads about recent releases from Pegaso and Andrea. Why ? I must consider that all such releases are historically correct ? Or there is a rule about not posting historical/accuracy notes about the releases of the great sculptors/companies ?

Accuracy and historical exactness is a great target, just like the coherence.

The market is full of ss infantryman, napoleonic and so on, so who really needs another of those figure ? Ares, for what I see, is a little company trying to find his way in the opposite direction, which is one of the most admirable thing one can do, in spite of all the possible mistakes.

There is a thousand of ways to remark about the historical exactness of a figure, but the one I see here, in my opinion, is just the worse.

Last but not least, why you do not post some of your work here ? I think most peope will be very happy to see how to develop a serious historical research and apply it to a market or scratchbuilded figure.
Assuming that your target is the historical accuracy, a such sample could be taken as example by most of us.

Luca

 

[JJM2]

Hola- Hello.
sincerely I feel that for the people who are very studious of the
subject they find failures archaeological, in You plow Mythologic, our intention is every time to repair these errors, our intention is to give to the public a different line, it is not excuse and we requested excuses by these erros, in some forum insistio that our previous reference (legionary Roman)
or was exact the segmented lorica, that it needed one or two pieces, I believe that the figure did not have it in the hand because they are
all, the armor took control of planes, we tried as I say every day to do it better and of some form I thank
to all, then this also makes us make an effort to us more, thanks to all.
Jose Jarque

 

[Alex Lopez]

I think, in general this is a GREAT work, congratulations Jose, I know the efforts yours in your firm.
And Im sure will be better and better.

Alex.

 

[JJM2]

Alex Thanks, Luca thanks and to all, the truth is that as escultor I do not have too much experience and
costs to me, I take much but attempt that the mark has attractive fiuras which
everybody can enjoy, I hope that we obtain it.
Best regards

 

[dario966]

hello, this is somewhat a response to Mr. Calvin's 'letter' addressing my questions and comments about the figure.
I was hesitant to answer Mr. Calvin's letter as it is nothing but an ad hominem attack on my person.
Unfortunately Calvin's attack addressed NONE of the issues and problems with this figure's historical incorrectness.
In short, almost a nonsense.
In light of that I believe that some things need to be said about the ' figures, ideas, and discussion on this forum.'
This Planetfigure.com is a' free forum.' One of its inherent characteristic is freedom of expression.
I do not need to explain why I make my choices and comment on ANY particular figure displayed on this forum.
It is my understanding that when figures are shown here the authors of such postings are in fact seeking commentaries from the forum members. The very nature of such commentary is, preferably, to be fair and reasonable. I also try to be fair and reasonable. The comments cannot be only positive as this will be unreasonable and too simplistic, although this forum has a tendency to give praise then criticism. and somehow has become a mouthpiece for the manufacturers, whitout critically looking at their product.
When manufacturers are presenting their work here they are doing it for a very simple reason: they want to sell their product, preferably all they have produced (figures and accessories, paints etc). The very name here,i.e., business, implies profit, i.e,, pecuniary gain.
Since they are making miniatures for profit, their production and claims they make along are naturally subject to review and criticism by the very same customers whom they want to entice into buying their product. Large or small they have the same goal in mind -profit, therefore there is no particualr differentiation when a small company or a large corporation would put out a product that is labelling itself one thing and in fact it is not quite what it purports to stand for. Using historical names and periods implies knowledge and research on their part and most of the time, unfortunately, it is not the case. But we could talk about this ad nauseam (especially since most people here prefer that), so I am going to stop and just say that I enjoy this forum and i do not want it to be a forum for all 'yeah' type of exchange.


Finally, there is nowhere in this forum 'contract' a requirement forcing any forum member who is commenting or otherwise contributing to this forum post their own figures here .
As to Mr.Calvin I invite you for private chat where we can exchange some not so pleasant words with each other without offending anyone or violating the rules of this forum.
Thanks for your patience...

 

[Jim Patrick]

OK guys, this is starting to go into that "grey" area. Our views have been made and posted for all to see. We all know where this is heading so let's "police" ourselves and avoid having this thread locked or deleted. If further discussion of the nature is needed (it has clearly moved from the figure discussion) please, by all means, carry it to PM's or e mails. Your cooperation in this matter will be most appreciated

Jim Patrick

 

[JJM2]

Mr.. Dario, as responsible for the mark, I have leido its exhibition and the encounter correctisima and with
reason, I request excuses to him if the figure at issue fault in
archaeological data, we have accepted the book of Osprey like correct, our fault has been possibly not to verify the data, thanks to all
Jose Jarque

 

[Tarok]

Regardless of what has been said above, one can't help but admire the Ares Mythologic range of figures for pure aesthetic value!

Mr Jarque, I for one really enjoyed looking at your range of products. They are magnificent!

Rudi

 

[dario966]

To Jose Jarque,
senor Jarque, las esculturas de usted son estupendas, y me encantan mucho.
Y toda esta discussion no tiene nada que ver con su arte de escultura de figuras y su facilidad de crear esculturas de mas alta qualidad. En caso el pobre perso, si vamos a dejar las cosas historicas la figura/escultura misma es magnifica!
espero ver mas de sus trabajos, mi favorita figura suya es el rey escita.
Quisas despues de ver el proximo libro de Opsrey sobre la caballeria persa, salira en Julio, usted nos presentara con un otro cabllero perso
Dear mr Jarque, your sculptures are amazing, and I like them a lot. All this discussion has nothing to do with your art of miniature sculpting and your ability to make miniature sculptures of the highest quality. In this case of our poor Achaemenid Persian, if we set aside the historical issues, the sculpture of this figure is magnificent!
I hope to see more work of your kind, my favorite being the Scythian king . so perhaps after the new book from Opsrey on the Persian cavalry coming this July you will give us another Persian cavalryman
Dario