Historically Correctness?

[Uruk-Hai]

Just few months ago we had a discussion about the recent release from Pegaso, Emanuel Grouchy figure. One expert was proving the other expert that it was painted inaccurately. Both of them had proves for their rights.
How do we find the answer in this situations?

Not being aware of the original discussion but also bear in mind that sometimes both can be right as uniforms and equipment do have variation or the change is very close in time?

This is a perfectly legitimate approach to take with many subjects, even if it's not without its potential pitfalls - it can lead to a best-guess or Frankenstein's monster depending!

Cheers
Janne Nilsson

 

[bonehead]

I think the answer to these questions is that one consider the probability, plausibility and the particular historical circumstances and other issues involving.

There is (almost) always more than one answer to a question. The key is to find the most plausible one.

A uniform image can only be a detail of the truth. Historical knowledge is equally important.

Cheers

Ah yes, "plausible". This is another way to say "arbitrary" or "subjective". What Martin is really saying is: "whatever you are willing to believe". That is a truly slippery slope which will, in the end, get you anything up to and including roughly 6 billion different opinions. "Plausible" is often only in the eye of the beholder.

But, to get back to the subject of this thread - Historical accuracy of commercial pieces:

We call them "historical miniatures" for a reason - they are intended to portray models in a historical context. I do not for one minute buy into the "who cares?" argument. A responsible sculptor owes it to the nature of the hobby to get things right. A sculptor who does not care is being cavalier and irresponsible about something it is their business to know. Many historical inaccuracies are the product of laziness and the creator failing to do proper research. If they want to create fantasy figures, then they should do fantasy subjects. History is history. Anything less is fantasy and a shabby product in a historical context.

Most toy soldiers show a reasonable degree of historical accuracy. Do some "historical miniaturists" only aspire to being poor relations to those artistically truncated "toys"? I contend that if they make obvious errors (that a little diligence can set straight) then those folks are setting a bad precedent and do not care if they are selling shabby products to their end customers. A professional product deserves a professional effort. Would you buy a house or car where the builder leaves out critical parts or fasteners or does not care whether nails actually do their intended job of holding the thing together? I wouldn't knowingly do that. And if I buy such a product only to later discover its flaws, then I have been sold a shabby or inferior product. End of story.

The only reason a maker fails to do their homework is laziness. The dog didn't "eat" their homework! They simply did not do it. If that is the case, then they deserve their poor evaluations because that is what they have truly earned. I have been in this business for over 25 years and I have always strived to make a historically accurate product - to the best of my ability - because I care about the outcome and my reputation depends on that. "Who cares?" is the equivalent of bad work.

Having said that, I am a person who loves the unusual and to walk the road less traveled. In the past I have done models where i have been unable to find anything more than a single reference source. In such cases, guess work is unavoidable. But that does not mean i shirk my responsibility to do good research. It only means that my due diligence failed to bear fruit. That will not stop me if i find the subject compelling. I have to do what I have to do. This is where historical knowledge can at least begin to fill in the gaps.

But there is no reasonable excuse for a historical miniaturist to fail to exercise due diligence. I want to do a proper job and I have built my reputation on my professionalism. There is no excuse for making obvious errors on common subjects where plentiful reference material is readily available. Modelers that do historical models owe it to their craft to practice due diligence. All others deserve the common student evaluation: "Johnny could do better if he only applied himself". And I know I would do better to avoid Johnny's shabby and careless products.

That is my opinion. And that is the opinion I have staked my professional reputation on. I have never aspired to "who cares?" because i actually do.....

 

[ChaosCossack]

Bravo Mike, Bravo
I must say you most eloquently cut right to the heart of the matter without bothering to guild the lily.
Bravo

Cheers
Colin

 

[billyturnip]

Good post Mike and that's why your still in the business.

Roger.

 

[Wings5797]

Nicely put Mike, I totally agree.
Cheers,
Keith

 

[Martin64]

Great attitude Mike, but your success as one of the top-sculptors IMHO is not just coming from the correct number of button-holes in the clothing of your miniatures but as well from their expression, good anatomy etc. Of course the goal should be to get as close as possible to the real appearance of an historical subject and as a customer I prefer these products. Nevertheless I feel that some discussions about historical correctness go over the top and it regularly happens when experts are getting involved who gain their reputation as experts mainly from their knowledge about "buttonholes" and not from their abilities as modellers.
Just as an example I quote memories of my late father who took part in the today quite well documented "Operation Barbarossa" - German attack on Russia in WW II - who told me that due to the lack of proper equipment in the winter of 1941 he and most of his comrades used complete Russian winter uniforms taken from casualties and so except for the German steel helmets everything else they wore including some weapons were Russian items.
What will the experts of the future years say when somebody releases a miniature wearing that "uniform" at "Universe-Expo 2550" on Mars?
I for my part will appreciate historical correctness as one of the criteria when looking for a new miniature but if there is something to correct and it is within my abilities as a modeller to do so I do not see a problem.
Cheers, Martin

 

[Martin Antonenko]

Good point, Martin!

Similarly with the First World War. There are several reports that the uniforms on the German side - from lack of material - at least since 1916 were by no means uniform.

For example, the writer Arnold Zweig told about his unit whose soldiers wore five different uniform variants simultaneously.

And recently it was ín this forum here the question of the color of Russian soldier caps during the Crimean War. The regulations after they were supposed to be green.

But there were also gray caps - made ​​because of lack of material from mantle material.

Some time ago there was in another forum a discussion of how the uniform of the kk (austrian) Infantry Regiment No. 4 ("Hoch- und Deutschmeister") looked like during the Seven Years War.

The available sources allows two variants appear possible.

I have therefore requested even at the "Heeresgeschichtliches Museum Wien" (Military History Museum at Vienna).

Result: Not even there, they know it exactly!

They could just tell when what rules were kind, but they did not know when - and whether - these rules have been implemented in the field.

And who can really say definitively and accurately determine whether - and from when - napoleonic cuirassiers carried it on their saddle cloth and portmanteaus numbers, grenade symbols, or both or nothing?

At least a photo of russian soldiers - men of the same unit (67. regiment of infantry)! - that was taken 1914:

You can see three different (colours and types) variants of field blouses (Modeles 1910, 1912 and 1914), three different kinds of shoulder straps and three different variants of caps in the picture. The cap of the soldier in the centre is the peakless cap that was worn before 1910...

So - what is "right"? And then comes "plausibility" to the game ...

Cheers

 

[Babelfish]

I think that historical accuracy is important because we paint history !

That's very noble and all. But I think that broadly speaking, the further back in time we go the more muddy the waters become.

So if your bag is (say) Romans & Barbarians or Mongols or Crusaders or something of that ilk, if we get too anal about "accuracy" and stick to only what's shown on Trajan's Column or in some reference book (or whatever), then in an extreme case we run the risk of ending up severely limiting ourselves (or perhaps not even bothering at all) due to our obsessive pursuit of "accuracy".

Where gaps in the records exist (and no matter what the "experts" may claim, there are many gaps!), there's nowt wrong with a bit of imagination and/or artistic license as far as I'm concerend.

- Steve

 

[Martin64]

[So - what is "right"? And then comes "plausibility" to the game ...]
Well said Martin!
Great picture - take a look at the belt-buckles of the three men indicating if they wear their belt left to right or opposite .
As another example I recall a (if not "the") figure-expert from a Modeller`s-Magazine (Model-Fan) reviewing a Derek-Hansen sculpt of a Bavarian Jaeger at Weissenburg 1870 telling the readers that the figure is nice but historically all wrong because the soldier is wearing a helmet with a lower crest that was introduced years later within the Bavarian Army and that he is armed with a Werder- rifle that was not issued to Bavarian troops at that time. He came to the conclusion that the historical correct miniature should have been wearing the old style helmet and been equipped with the regular Bavarian Podewils rifle. As a reader of this review I would have possibly stayed away from that miniature because the correcting of these "errors" would have been a hard task. In fact that was the recommendation of the expert who never displayed a painted figure done by himself as long as I was among the readers of the magazine.
Finally I came across a picture taken after the battle of Weissenburg with focus on French Zouaves taken as POW`s guarded by a Bavarian Jaeger clearly displaying the low crested modern helmet and later I discovered a book about the Franco-Prussian-War with eye-witness accounts printed in 1890 where a Bavarian veteran of the Battle of Weissenburg recalls that next to them the Bavarian Jaeger Bataillon No. 9 was deployed which (as a "special unit") had already been equipped with the modern Werder-Buechse.
"Historical correctness" can be a difficult matter and the more time has passed by the harder it gets to research all facts. Sometimes it is even not a solution to listen to experts as a sculptor or as a modeller.
Nevertheless - interesting thread.
All the best, Martin

 

[Babelfish]

Of course, let's not forget that the so-called "experts" can get it wrong as well. And that often, they themselves are only "experts" because their knowledge of an incomplete picture is slightly better than Joe Soap's knowledge of the same incomplete picture.

- Steve

 

[Ferris]

Lots of very interesting points made, and opinions stated. I just feel that some statements are a bit judgmental and I cannot escape the impression that some of us take accuracy a wee bit too seriously. We are not ''painting history', we are having a good time doing something we like. If that includes doing lots of research, do it. If we just want to do the painting, just do that. Live and let live.

Adrian

 

[Uruk-Hai]

A backside is when the self-appointed expert in some area decides that something is wrong when it isnt?
This happends a lot and we can see it on this forum that also some real experts can be proven wrong from time to time?

Cheers
Janne Nilsson

 

[Babelfish]

I cannot escape the impression that some of us take accuracy a wee bit too seriously. We are not ''painting history', we are having a good time doing something we like. If that includes doing lots of research, do it. If we just want to do the painting, just do that. Live and let live
Adrian

Best and most sensible post in the thread thus far.

- Steve

 

[captnenglish]

I agree in principle with what Mike (Good) has posted, but I think Martin Rohmann makes a point for the "plausible" side of things. For me it is more about the sculpting of a commercial kit than the boxart/painting guide, as I enjoy the research aspect of what we do (vocational hazard). I also can't sculpt worth a damn, and with the price of figures these days I do not want to have to re-do an entire figure (replace a bit of gear or the like is ok but nothing more)!

 

[Einion]

Ah yes, "plausible". This is another way to say "arbitrary" or "subjective". What Martin is really saying is: "whatever you are willing to believe". That is a truly slippery slope which will, in the end, get you anything up to and including roughly 6 billion different opinions. "Plausible" is often only in the eye of the beholder.

Very much agree with the rest of your post but this is a bit unkind to the idea presented by Martin - you're stumbling on the word he used, and as English is not his native tongue some slack is maybe appropriate. His post did make the underlying gist quite plain, and it's something I happen to believe is generally the way to go - so perhaps most likely would sit better?

That's very noble and all. But I think that broadly speaking, the further back in time we go the more muddy the waters become.

That's certainly true, but it's not an excuse for invention (as distinct from educated guesswork), e.g. fantasy winged helmets - we've seen enough of those! - where there's no evidence for them.

So if your bag is (say) Romans & Barbarians or Mongols or Crusaders or something of that ilk, if we get too anal about "accuracy" and stick to only what's shown on Trajan's Column or in some reference book (or whatever), then in an extreme case we run the risk of ending up severely limiting ourselves (or perhaps not even bothering at all) due to our obsessive pursuit of "accuracy".

I think I see your point here - if you're too concerned with accuracy and you can't find evidence you skip the subject entirely. Is that it? That would certainly be the way some people would choose to go! I've held off on numerous projects (and I know I'm not the only one) due to lack of info, biding my time until additional references could be hunted down or just luckily crossed my radar.

Einion

 

[Babelfish]

That's certainly true, but it's not an excuse for invention (as distinct from educated guesswork), e.g. fantasy winged helmets - we've seen enough of those! - where there's no evidence for them

Ah, on Vikings for example, yes? I'm not a fan of winged helmets either and yes you're right there is no evidence for them. And knowing that, I wouldn't go with the "winged helmet" option myself.

But you know what? If someone chooses to then that's fine by me. It's his project and he's paying for the kit so why not?! As far as I'm aware, there's no "modelling law" that forbids it - and nor should there be (Pegaso's 90mm Viking Chief for example gives you both options, with or without wings).

But I was thinking more about sweeping statements along the lines of something I read on here a while back. I can't recall the exact wording (and I can't be bothered to trawl through old threads to check) but it was something like "backwoodsmen in the 18th century didn't have baggy shirt sleeves" (so there!).

Really though? How are we to know that there were no 18th century backwoodsmen whose sleeves were baggy? We don't, and it's impossible to say for definite one way or the other, let alone tout it as gospel.

There's no "evidence" of me having worn a pair of "Rupert Bear" flares, a loud floral shirt and a clashing lilac kipper tie either - but I once did. Circa 1978. So when years hence I'm a famous historical personage and Maurice Corry's great grandson casts me in 120mm resin wearing garb of that description, expect him to get slated by the "accurists" for casting me in clobber "for which no photographic evidence exists" (for which by the way I give grateful thanks!) and getting pompously accused of "shoddy research" ("all the photographic evidence shows late 1970s Steve Riley with a Bay City Rollers haircut, jeans and beetle-crushers - he never wore Rupert Bear trousers").

But here's the rub - I did, and the sculptor would be bang on the money!

A slightly flippant example perhaps, but maybe you get my point - i.e. use existing evidence by all means, but don't fall into the trap of thinking that the record will ever be "complete" because it won't. I have little enough time to devote to painting as it is, and I see no point in falling victim to A.M.S.

- Steve

 

[Einion]

But I was thinking more about sweeping statements along the lines of something I read on here a while back. I can't recall the exact wording (and I can't be bothered to trawl through old threads to check) but it was something like "backwoodsmen in the 18th century didn't have baggy shirt sleeves" (so there!).

Really though? How are we to know that there were no 18th century backwoodsmen whose sleeves were baggy? We don't, and it's impossible to say for definite one way or the other, let alone tout it as gospel.

That's fair enough, and yes, broad generalisations have lots of opportunities to be wrong in the specific which is why they should be carefully stated to make it clear they are generalisations and not pronouncements of gospel.

As far as the statement you paraphrase goes, any chance it was the other way around? The norm was for sleeves to be very roomy at that time. If it were the opposite way around then I'd have to say yeah, that's more likely than not to be right!

Einion

 

[bonehead]

Very much agree with the rest of your post but this is a bit unkind to the idea presented by Martin - you're stumbling on the word he used, and as English is not his native tongue some slack is maybe appropriate. His post did make the underlying gist quite plain, and it's something I happen to believe is generally the way to go - so perhaps most likely would sit better?

Thanks Einion, point taken. I was certainly overstating the case. My apologies for any slights taken from that.

However, the point i was trying to make is that the conclusions drawn concerning what is "plausible" are subjective and largely dependent on the individual's knowledge of the subject and what reference sources they have access to. There are so many variables here that the only certainty is that different conclusions will be drawn by different folks at different times. And of course, this conundrum has been discussed here as well.

Reference sources and knowledge of the subject are always subjective. With more modern subjects, say WWII Germans, the amount of good first hand material, good photos and actual items available to be studied is quite large. So a determined person could find all the info he needs readily and without going much further than his web browser. Things do get more dicey as we go back in time. Certainly WWI, another subject i have had a lot of experience with, has a lot of evidentiary holes down which even a determined person could easily fall. And things only get more dicey and ambiguous going back in time and with the obscurity of a subject.

In such situations, educated guessing is the only alternative. And the quality of that activity will vary depending, again, on the individual's knowledge of subject, available reference sources and whatever they are wiling (or unwilling) to believe about them. Case in point:

When I did this Cossack figure for SK Miniatures, I was inspired by a set of period illustrations of Cossacks in Paris which were presumably done at the time. The dress of the Cossacks in the illustrations differed in many details from the broad selection of other references I had about Cossacks from this period.

What should I do? Should I follow the well worn paths of contemporary illustrations made by "experts" whose works are well known and broadly accepted as, more or less, authoritative? (I should also point out that ALL of the "authoritative" references showed differences in detail from one source to another. None of them agreed.) Or should i hew to the period illustrations that inspired me and, presumably, were made by somebody who actually witnessed the Cossacks in Paris? My choice was to do a little of both. I have little doubt that what the Cossacks wore at the time was far from universally "uniform" and varied in degrees between units and individuals.

So, I chose details that seemed to agree between some references and my primary inspirational sources. Then I chose other details arbitrarily: those details that i liked - carefully gleaned from my multiple reference sources. 100% accuracy? Not on your life. Historically likely? Yes, within certain limits. Just plain wrong? No doubt - in some details.

But I did the best I could given the conflicting nature of my references which were numerous. Then I simply picked whatever details I liked to make an amalgam of conflicting details into something I could live with. I would never say that this figure is completely accurate. But I would say that it was an honest attempt to make something coherent out of the chaotic and ambiguous information I had.

The end result is arbitrary and subjective. It was all down to my choices. The only thing I could say was "most likely" or "plausible" about that is that I tried to avoid making stuff up. Sometimes you just have to make choices based on personal prejudices and personal aesthetics and hope that you get somewhere inside the ballpark. That is because the actual truth is something i could not possibly glean from conflicting sources.

And I think that justifies the basic premise of what i originally said - if not the hyperbolic way i said it. BTW, I chose the Cossack because i know it is something Martin could relate to....

 

[Martin Antonenko]

Thanks Einion, point taken. I was certainly overstating the case. My apologies for any slights taken from that.

No problem, something I do, unfortunately, sometimes even

BTW, I chose the Cossack because i know it is something Martin could relate to....

For Your cossak, for You took a very special view on them through "western eyes". I mean Your sources, those wonderful paintings of Opitz.

After that, You titled Yor figure "Cossack at Paris 1812, after Opitz".
Opitz painted the cossacks as he saw them through his "western eyes" and - I think - with a share of caricature, which is reflected in the faces, but in other details ,the baggy pants, for example, too.

This caricature can also be seen on the French, who are to seen in the Opitz-paintings.

Russian sources show those uniforms in quite another way, though many details are similar, as You said. (We discussed that in Your thread)..:

http://i207.photobucket.com/albums/bb57/Fritz_111/kosak001.jpg

http://i207.photobucket.com/albums/bb57/Fritz_111/DonCossack1812.jpg

I would prefer the Russian sources.

Cheers

 

[Martin Antonenko]

But "after Opitz" Your cossack is not wrong. For me it's "right" - but after some special sources.
Cheers