History, Schmistery!

[TADATSUGU]

I have recently posted to point out historical innaccuracies in new vignettes or figures coming onto the market. I have been suprised at some of the reactions of other members, to the effect that they didn't really care, as they still liked the figure(s), and would still be buying anyway; that they didn't mind, because some iconic myth was being represented; or , "well, it could have happened", even after I had only just explained in detail why it couldn't!
How about you? If you saw a killer kit that was inherently wrong, would you keep quiet or say something? Would you still buy a flawed concept because you couldn't resist a stunning sculpture?
To me, accuracy and research have always been an inseperable part of the enjoyment in this hobby, shouldn't manufacturers therefore at least make sure the kits they produce depict events that are feasible? After all, there seems to be a marked trend these days towards buying a good painter's project rather than specialisation in a specific period. Nothing wrong with that, but having done so, wouldn't you be somewhat peeved to find out after many hours of work, that you had just created a model of something that never happened?

 

[MCPWilk]

The Tommy's War lancer is superbly sculpted and catches the moment. When it first came out I pointed out a couple of inaccuracies and was in effect told to 'bog off'; it was a superbly animated and produced figure (true) and I was nit-picking at such a scale. The inaccuracies have since been corrected to produce an even better figure.

I have ensured that when the Victory Miniatures 120mm 16th Lancer (superbly sculpted by Paul Phillips) is released, there should be no historical inaccuracies.

It is of course difficult getting it right the further back into history we go, but where there is photographic evidence or examples of kit/uniform in existence, then there is no excuse for not getting it right. There is after all no shortage of research material available.

Mike

 

[Martin64]

Of course the historical research is part of the fun but some inaccuracies are often easy to fix and not the end of the world. I can recall even discussions when the person that pointed his finger on details that were "wrong" was proven to be not well informed by himself.
So if something seems to be awkward I like to know about it here on PF from the experts. But opinions should be given in a constructive manor and if somebody simply likes the sculpt and the model - inaccuracies included - and paints it up into a nice model he will get surely a like from my side.
My two cents.
Cheers, Martin

 

[Huw63]

I think the research and also realistic poses are vital. I'm not impressed where things are adjusted for artistic license or where the pose is physically impossible. Uniform colours and weaponry must suit the period of course the further back in time one goes the more difficult it gets. I like your comments Tadatsugu.

Cheers

Huw

 

[Blind Pew]

Well to my mind, the button counters are usually rubbish painters anyway, and I take little notice of them.
All this getting knickers in a twist about buttons and stuff takes away from the artistic side, which is my attraction.
Of course, nobody wants to see a Napoleonic guy brandishing an AK-47 but I don't pay massive attention to accuracy.
Having said that, Mike is 100% right in that where references abound, there is little excuse.

 

[Huw63]

Interesting to see the diversity of opinions already showing.

 

[Blind Pew]

Interesting to see the diversity of opinions already showing.

Exactly! This debate rears it's ugly head every so often on here, and the range of opinions is always fun to see!

 

[TADATSUGU]

Thanks Huw, I'm not alone!
I take your point Blind Pew, But although I might be a button counter myself, the things I am referring to are larger issues. A recent point concerned the continuing myth of the 1st Grenadiers of the imperial Guard at Waterloo, depicted as brandishing a tattered standard (which was also the wrong pattern for the period), or advancing dramatically into battle.
This just didn't happen. The 1st Grenadiers were in reserve all day, behind the battlefield, and in reserve until they escorted Napoleon away in good order at the end of the battle. That they died in a hail of bullets and grapeshot is probably the result of Victor Hugo's dramatised account, re-enforced by the film Waterloo, which gives the impression that the Guard died as a homogenous unit.
Yet I keep seeing this Regiment being depicted in it's last thoes.
As Mike says about reference material, there are dozens of books on Waterloo, (I actually saw four new books titled Waterloo, a week or two ago, on my last visit to Waterstones in Stockport). If someone wanted to depict a heroic last stand, they could easily depict the break-up of squares of the Chasseurs or the 2nd and 3rd Grenadiers, or even the initial repulse of the 4th Chasseurs ;- all very dramatic material.
To the manufacturers credit (who I have refrained from naming as I don't want to be negatively influencing any sales), the issue of the wrong flag on one of the models I was talking about is now in the process of being rectified, but this still does not resolve the problem of the misconception about the 1st Grenadiers at Waterloo. All that would be required would be the omission of the eagle, attached colour or not, as it would only have been carried by the 1st Battalion of the 1st Grenadiers, however this would be a major undertaking, as the standard is basically the focus of the whole model. Simply changing the the model to a Chasseur, or any other Guard Regiment would not make it right as long as the standard remains.
If my facts are proven to be wrong in this case I will happily retract my comments and apologise to the manufacturer, but the principle of other models that may be historically incorrect still remains.

 

[Huw63]

I think in our community there's room for all. For me it's about as accurately as possible depicting history in 3d. Research is a large part of the pleasure for me and I'm very average when it comes to finishing.

I also make armour and there my issue is the idea of tanks having initial, early, mid and late models. Changes evolved as in car production today though there were some major changes sometimes- the reality is that you'd get mixed features depending on production availability.

Fantasy certainly has a place and the finishes of some figures are fantastic. Equally I appreciate the works on busts but they aren't for me.

Vive la difference!

 

[Helm]

I can take or leave minor things but glaring faults should in this day and age no longer appear
Steve

 

[Blind Pew]

I can take or leave minor things but glaring faults should in this day and age no longer appear
Steve

I think that is a great and succinct way of putting it.

At the end of the day, my take on it really is this-
There is no prize for the best-researched, most accurate figure. But glaring errors in that regard do detract.

I look for what moves me, and it is that makes me crave doing a figure or not.

 

[Colin_Fraser]

I don't really care about accurate portrayal of specific events. I think you will find that 99% of Napoleonic paintings are romantic renderings by artists who were never there. Even those by eye witnesses like Baron Lejeune are clearly romantic. If it was good enough for the French public, it is good enough for me.

Re. Individual uniforms and portrayals - I still lean towrd the romantic. I would rather see a Marshal Ney retreat from Mosckow figure clean shave and washed in a clean coat than with an unrecognizable, blackened and bearded street person face even if that is almost certainly more accurate.

Given that, i do get anal about specific uniform detail and features like hair and eye colour on personalities. He may be too clean or in a ficticious position, but the number of buttons had damn well better be riht.

Colin

 

[housecarl]

A bit like this.

 

[Helm]

See there is the beauty of the hobby Colin. I am the opposite I try to paint my figures as they were likely to look in the field unless they are clearly on parade etc.
Steve

 

[TADATSUGU]

Martin, that artist must have been under stress at the time and therefore can't possibly be relied on - .
That Marijn Van Gils figure is hilarious!
But please don't get me wrong. My comments aren't aimed at fellow modellers or their right to personal choice.
I remember, many years ago seeing a great article, in either Mil Mod or airfix Mag, an article constructing a diorama showing Polish lancers running down Scots Greys a la the Waterloo film. It was a great model. If that modeller intended to make a model as a tribute to the film, that is O.K. with me, as long as it is the stated intent and it does not perpetuate an error being emulated by other modellers as fact.
However, if a manufacturer, either in error or misunderstanding, produces a similar piece and markets it, however unknowing, as an authentic depiction of the actual event, it would then become problematic for me. My preference, (and that's all it would be), would in that case, be to reseach which Regiment did counter-charge the Greys, and go with that for the model.

I also do accept that many people like to recreate a well known painting, such as David's Napoleon Crossing the Alps, which is inherently a propaganda piece, and it would be impossible to do that without making it unrecognisable as such. Personally I would rather have him on a mule, unless of course, someone unearthed uncontradictable evidence that he did use a pogo-stick!

 

[swralph]

I'm firmly in the mind,that I don't really care too much about historical accuracy.I do so many model's that I just don't have time to worry about it.I do care about the quality of a kit though.If I see a kit and I like it that is good enough for me.
All the best.
Ralph.

 

[Ferris]

Some sculptors and manufacturors are simply more into accuracy than others. It's our decision to buy or not buy. I don't think sculptors and manufacturors have any obligation to be accurate.
Personally I like historical accuracy and I tend to skip over figures that obviously have some error.

Having said that, sometimes the knowledge about what is correct changes, especially if we go deeper back in time. Can we all keep track of that? Spare time either goes to research, or to painting. The risk with being too anal about accuracy is that we never finish anything. So I think it's a balance; I do my best to get references and if some things remain vague I make an eastetic guess (or ask PF!).

Cheers,
Adrian

 

[ellie]

Hi guys well it looks like our figure (Ellie's Miniatures) the old Guard at bay has caused a bit of controversy. I have said in a previous post the master was commissioned as I loved the one releases by Hinchcliffe back in the 80's, I loved the pose and the subject. we asked Moz to sculpt it based on the original. ( he did a great job ). when we posted it on here we genuinely thought it was ok. when it was pointed out that it was not Moz offered to do another flag, we accepted. but the kit will still go out with the original flag,

We do take note of what people have to say, we are not experts on every period which is why we do not drift too far from subjects we both have good research on and have a good knowledge of. this time it was a project that I've wanted for a while. I'm very happy with the result. will we go down the Napoleonic route again dam right we will. will people still find fault with it I'm sure they will. but we will always try and give the hobby something they want to see even if it's artistic fiction as sometimes it's better that the reality and makes for a more interesting subject and the uniform will be correct.

Ellie & Ian

Ellie's Miniatures

 

[ChaosCossack]

I myself appreciate historical accuracy and try my best to reseach the figures or scenes I create. I count on sculptors to at least give me a good base from which to start, uniform wise. It's then up to me to present him in the right surroundings.
IE I can't depict a Scots Grey gamboling about the fields of Borodino or a Russian Grenadier fighting at Salamanca... no matter how accurate the uniform is!

If a unit was present at a specific action and you have the uniform right, you're more than 90% there. Depicting a single fig on a base is easy enuff... ie, there was no snow at Waterloo. Multiple fig scenes are a bit harder... if two units had no contact during the fight, you can't really have them in a diorama... fighting each other. You gotta be true to historical accounts as best you can, BUT, you can't say for certain what every individual there was up to throughout the chaos of battle.

For the fig in question... 1st Guard Grenadiers were at Waterloo, yes. That battalion carried the standard, yes. Did they get into the fight? not really. Could they have come under artillery fire that may have damaged the flag? possibly. Is the fig in a combat pose? Not really... more a defiant posture.

So. Could you depict a Grenadier of the 1st Batt, with the standard, standing looking hard and ready, watching the battle from reserve?

With a properly dated flag and alone on the base...YES!!!!!

All this being said, I believe I will buy this well sculped fig and I'll be sure to attach the above explaination to give context when I post him.

Enjoy the hobby for what it is

Colin

 

[ellie]

Well said Colin in full agreement with you. He could be at other battles not waterloo I made the mistake of say old guard at bay I should have just said old guard with standard and left it at that we live and learn.

ian