News from Alexandros models

[templar magister]

Just from taking a quick look:

The belt is not like any gladiator's belt ever shown in Roman iconography,
The greave on the left leg is of the wrong type,
The right leg is bandaged up too much,
The sword is too long,
The shield boss is far too big and ornate,
No gladiator wore a leopard skin in the arena,
Gladiators did not wear sandals.

All of the commercially available gladiator figures I've seen have incorrect equipment. The best of the bunch so far, but still no cigar, has been the standing Mirmillo recently released by Pegaso.

First dear friend why you destroy such a good figure by writeing all that if you do not like it do not buy it.
Please see the series "Spartacus" and the gladius sword were longer and lighter in 2nd century A.D.
One more thing find on the web about a German archeologist name
Lunkermann and read his study about them.

 

[raty]

hi i like the new gladiator figuer it is good. bat i think the pegaso gladiator figuer is nicey !!.i think. ok speak to you soon raty.

 

[pinsel]

hello
well the german gentleman is anmed JUNKELMANN.
and if you refering to an spartacus series from tv which is in regards to historic correctness AN DREADFULL DISASTER you are setting money on the wrong horse.
gladiators used very short swords.the only ones which did an gladius styled sword where the PROVACATOR which was an very lightly armed fast sword fighter.
so Harry is in all aspects correct.why shall one not state whats wrong on figure.if they make them and want sell them they can at least read some hsitoric reference before making them.....there are some painters which are not interested in correctness other are.i belong to the later ones.i would even not paint an ww2 helmet pink so why shall this not go for historic miniatures.
and if somebody shows his work and wants other oppinions one can state such thing.
even more if Gordy runner of the board say please chaps do it.
cheers

 

[templar magister]

hello
well the german gentleman is anmed JUNKELMANN.
and if you refering to an spartacus series from tv which is in regards to historic correctness AN DREADFULL DISASTER you are setting money on the wrong horse.
gladiators used very short swords.the only ones which did an gladius styled sword where the PROVACATOR which was an very lightly armed fast sword fighter.
so Harry is in all aspects correct.why shall one not state whats wrong on figure.if they make them and want sell them they can at least read some hsitoric reference before making them.....there are some painters which are not interested in correctness other are.i belong to the later ones.i would even not paint an ww2 helmet pink so why shall this not go for historic miniatures.
and if somebody shows his work and wants other oppinions one can state such thing.
even more if Gordy runner of the board say please chaps do it.
cheers

Ok maybe you are right.But not all "versions" of gladiators are known so we can not be 100% sure for all.And for accuracy I am sure Charles Vaquero saw the one he sculpt.As for painting Alex Cortina is the one who painted.And one more thing you MAKING DAMAGE to the manufactuer so I think this will stop here ok??And I think Harry can answer himself not you.

 

[pinsel]

well this is an open plattform isnt it.so its my thing what i comment.and i do not damage anything.the reputation of an maker is meassured after the stuff he brings out.and if they use the comercial factor of this forum to praise their items they have to endure some critics as well.even if one says i would buy it anyway.
if somebody complains about the awfull packing of an major spanisch brand i think its possible to giving some comments on historical flaws too.
again i like it neverless.and 1 percent of painters strive for historical correctness.so what shall the heck.
again gordy did spirit people to give hints if something is incorrect.
i stand to my remarks i made.if they want sell something they can at least strive for historical correctness.
if you do not like comments made by me respond to them.i for my part will not alter my kind of posting here.
and Harry is surely not in need of any help.i commented only something.and allow i THINK THE MANUFACTURER does not need your help anyway...
so its 1:1 in an open game
cheers

 

[Tecumsea]

I think we are all quite capable of making our own personal judgements on figures, whether it is based on Historical Accuracy, Artistic Merit, Scale, ease of painting, conversion possibilities etc etc. Any or all of these could be a factor.
If you are concerned about Historical accuracy don't buy it, and yes, if you think it is flawed in this sense then debate should be welcome on this and other forums.
As to affecting sales, I think we should be careful not to get carried away with self importance, this site and others represents only a small proportion of the modelling community I find it difficult to believe that comments here would markedly affect any manufacturers sales.
Keith

 

[secutor]

As I had occasion to write long ago (not here) about the historical reliability of the figures (ancient Rome, pre-Roman peoples, gladiators, etc.) for me this is the basis of every aspect of reconstruction!
How I love to say, the realization of each subject consists of three main points, in order, documentation - sculpture - painting.
It is obvious that the first is fundamental!
Honor to sculptor and to painter who can make the "veins in the eyes" of an Etruscan warrior, but if he is armed with a Mauser or is "adorned" with a feathered cheyenne shield because they do more on the original box art .....
Unfortunately, anyone who suggests something - myself included, not just a firm - is at stake and is exposed to the opinion of those who see (and perhaps buy) the artifact; each of us must take the equivalent of every ten "wow", "beautiful", "masterpiece", “I like it, I will buy”, that there is someone, some responsible, you will find something not historically accurate in construction, and it does this; this, unfortunately, is considered denigrating the work and effort (including economic) of others - something which I was accused (and banned) elsewhere,
There is no doubt that in the narrow band of the forum have any negative opinions effect on the sale of the subject, but just do not think this small number would affect sales to those who come in contact with the product in stores. I do not think that if SECVTOR - or other - critics at uniformological a figure that has an impact on sales; if so, we would ..... “obliged” to write to every news, the usual cloying "wonderful",
"wow”, ecc,
Thanks again and Gordy and Tommy to the freedom of expression guaranteed in this forum.
Robert

 

[gordy]

This is an argument that has divided many members over the years.
And it was a matter of time before it resurfaced again.

Yes, there are some folks who point out inaccuracies on a figure kit and that is welcome as it helps to educate other members on what to look for. PlanetFigure encourages people to point out these inaccuracies and errors *only* if the claims can be sourced. That I think is only fair.

Sourcing historical flaws helps:
A) people can reference it for future use
B) legitimizes claims made by histocracy fans
C) encourages others to take part in accuracy

The historacracy crowd needs to understand that they are 100% welcomed but also need to understand that there is a great amount of diplomacy in pointing out inaccuracies, you might not think so but words can be powerful. Keep in mind consistent protests of historical accuracy can tarnish ones' reputation has in the past driven newcomers, veterens and even sculptors away from the hobby or pursue another genre all together.

This touches on another item that historical protestations can have an impact on: newcomers to the hobby. We want to encourage new figurists to the hobby and we want to be percieved as welcoming and inviting. "this is wrong" or "That's the wrong greaves" arent very tactful or diplomatic nor if there is not any reference to support the claims does no good service.

Historical enthusiasts should be encouraged to take a figure kit and draw up a list of issues and present them in a formal article and sourced to encourage figurists to modify or convert a piece that is historically accurate. This in my opinion would be the most favourable and would be a tremendous service to those with high interests in historical accuracy. Although some will still take the easy way out and say "this sandal is wrong" or "this was never *that* colour"...

 

[templar magister]

Gordy if I wrote something wrong I AM DEEPLY SORRY and you have my apology.
From now on I will follow your words.
Christos

 

[gordy]

Gordy if I wrote something wrong I AM DEEPLY SORRY and you have my apology.
From now on I will follow your words.
Christos

Oh no, there is nothing to be sorry for Christos!

The intent of my post is to outline that historical accuracy indications are 100% welcomed, however without source material it comes across as an opinion and not fact and doesn't educate others

 

[templar magister]

Oh no, there is nothing to be sorry for Christos!

The intent of my post is to outline that historical accuracy indications are 100% welcomed, however without source material it comes across as an opinion and not fact and doesn't educate others

Thank you Gordy!

 

[pinsel]

hello well the german historian MARCUS JUNKELMANN did write an impressive book about this issue.he did study known gladiators artifacts like helmets greaves ect from the gladiators shool of Pompeji.beneath this lots of pictural evidence are sighted and studied.after this they did the recontruction of the gladiators weaponry.with recreatet armour in reenactment trials they tried to come to conclusions about the pairs of fighters their weapons their armour ect
to date this is the most serius effort to threw some light paired with true historical evidence on this issues.
the book is titled DAS SPIEL MIT DEM TOD
AN GAME WITH DEATH
if you follow this alone you come to the conclusions which where already discussed here.
because Marcus Junkelmann did work on his book over 10 years and did list and show ALL known articfacts which have to do with the gladiature one can lay considerable weight on his conclusions.as more they are the first true effort to reconstruct and use authentic wepoans and use them in the right context.
then i mention evidences made from an gladiators gravefield in turkey.the human remains did show lots of hints which could be compared with gladiators weapon arsenal.
so after this data recorded by the historians so far one can say this figure is not sculpted true to the newest state of knowledge.
so if one is interest in this book its the best one can get on market.and its available for anyone.
cheers

 

[Gauntlet]

I'm putting this one on my X-mass list

 

[rej]

Great sculpt and an equally great paint!

Ray

 

[Harry]

First dear friend why you destroy such a good figure by writeing all that if you do not like it do not buy it.
Please see the series "Spartacus" and the gladius sword were longer and lighter in 2nd century A.D.
One more thing find on the web about a German archeologist name
Lunkermann and read his study about them.

I do not wish to prolong this unpleasantness but I must insist on the opportunity to make this one response in my defence.

I am not "destroying" your figure. In fact I rather admire the anatomy and sculpting in it. However, I was not the one who raised the topic of historical inaccuracy nor was I the one who asked for particulars. Direct your petulance to those posters.

The television series "Spartacus" is pure fantasy. It has absolutely nothing at all to do with historical Roman gladiatorial sports. Its producers have even admitted this themselves openly. As a general rule for the future, one would do well to assume that everything presented on TV or in films related to the practical culture of ancient civilizations is historically inaccurate in some way. This state of affairs will persist as long as there are budgetary restrictions for productions and while there are industry awards for things like "costume design" and "art direction". Anything they do get right is a rare bonus.

If your figure is a character from the fantasy "Spartacus" TV series then you should have clearly specified this in your title. As it is, you are presenting this to paying customers as a model of a myrmillo (aka mormillo, mirmillo). A gladiator the armature of which is extremely consistent in Roman iconography and which is very well understood by scholars. That being so, and having posted your work on an open forum, you should be prepared to answer, without rancour, the valid concerns of those who have actual knowledge of such matters.

Gladiator swords, starting from the beginning of the early Principate, were shorter than military swords. More like large daggers. Roman iconography is absolutely consistent on this.

I shall not purchase the figure, but only because I have no interest in buying any commercial castings any more. If I did still have such interest then I would buy this model and correct the few inaccuracies myself. As I said, I admire it for its anatomy and pose. Its pose is about the best I have seen of the gladiator figures on offer. I still reserve the right to pass comment on items posted, even if I have no desire to purchase any of the commercial items that are advertised for free here.

All of my points regarding historical authenticity are true and correct and I can back them up rigorously with evidence if required. They are not just idle "opinions". I never opine on such matters as this, where there is good and well attested evidence. (I will only post in this thread again if these details and references are solicited.) However, since people are going to be charged a lot of money for these "historical" figures, in a time when research of this nature has never been easier to do, I am very disappointed indeed that I had to raise these points at all. If we were able years ago to get things meticulously correct with just the interlibrary loan service and (actual, physical) museum visits, then it is dismaying to find, in the modern information age, that the state of affairs has apparently not advanced much.

I am very familiar indeed with all of Dr. Marcus Junkelmann's work (and all the other scholars who have published work on Roman gladiatorial and venatorial sports in the last 70 years or so - I've eagerly studied this as a hobby myself for over 30 years). I would be very pleased indeed to assist any figure manufacturer (even Mr. Templar Magister) who is interested in producing gladiatorial figures in accordance with the latest state of scholarship in this subject. Although, as I said above, this information is nowadays almost trivially easy to source for anyone with a bit of determination. For example, I had to travel to Libya to see the famous Zliten gladiatorial mosaic up close - nowadays one can inspect pin-sharp, close-up, full-colour images free of charge from one's computer chair!

Finally, I was not aware that historical accuracy was no longer valued in the historical miniatures side of the hobby. I also fail to see how there can be valid grounds for any sort of argument on this. I sadly recognise now that I am evidently very much behind the times. I shall therefore henceforth restrain myself from making any similar comments on this "planetFigure" forum - even when solicited, as happened in this particular case.

 

[Gellso]

Lets all just take a deep breath!

Can we have a seperate section for the experts of historical correctness so they can chew the facts over the of colours of sandals in 150 A.D.?

I think Gordy has made the thoughts on what Planet figure is all about.
I think we are, in the main, the most friendliest and all round supportive forum.
There are there are other forums where "anal"ysts relish in pointing out historical inaccuracies such as armour being too thick or the wrong colour of cloaks. I'm wondering what their motivation is? Is it to help others? As the sculpt is already cast, it won't be changed so why tell everyone about the anomalies. Or is it to prove 30 years of study has finally some benefit to themselves?
Lets just enjoy the figures for what they are...amazing sculpts and mouth wateringly tempting to paint.
Now where did i put my 110% accurate, genuine, academically proven mix for spartan sandals?

 

[Einion]

Direct your petulance to those posters.

For goodness sake Harry, you're not helping matters by characterising his response as petulance. English is not Christos's first language for a start so at least cut him some slack on that front.

There's only unpleasantness here if you choose to see it that way. If we all keep our heads then it's just a discussion, and although it may be passionate (and there may be passionate disagreement) it doesn't have to leave a bad taste in your mouth simply for there being differences of viewpoint.

Finally, I was not aware that historical accuracy was no longer valued in the historical miniatures side of the hobby. I also fail to see how there can be valid grounds for any sort of argument on this. I sadly recognise now that I am evidently very much behind the times. I shall therefore henceforth restrain myself from making any similar comments on this "planetFigure" forum - even when solicited, as happened in this particular case.

Oi vey, you do realise this comes across as petulant?

You're quite right, you were asked for details on the historical issues with this figure and I stand behind you 100% that you, or anyone, should be allowed (encouraged in fact!) to post about inaccuracies as we see them. And frankly I don't think that such observations should garner any commentary, this being historical modelling after all; it's one thing to disagree on whether something is or is not accurate or true to life, it's another to take issue with such a comment being made.

But that said, Gordy's comments should be read in toto, not selectively to take from them a specific (a priori?) message - how something is worded can make all the difference in how it's received. And it's his forum, we don't get to dictate the acceptable tone for here, he decides that, it's as simple as that.

All of my points regarding historical authenticity are true and correct and I can back them up rigorously with evidence if required.

Okay, well since you brought that up: some things are going to be a matter of interpretation and even different experts can and do disagree on specific details, knowing the same things (not saying anything you don't already know).

You've been careful in how you've stated certain things in a couple of recent posts, "All the evidence indicates..." "not like... ever shown in Roman iconography" but then other times state things in a dogmatic way, which is fine up to a point if we have certainty but not where we don't. Or can't. So going back to your quick-look comments, there's no way that we can be definitive about the binding on the legs for one.

I'm no Roman expert, far from it, but this isn't a piece of equipment, it's just cloth. The cloth itself would practically never survive in buried remains and certainly not in situ on the leg, so all we have to go on are artistic interpretations (pretty crude ones let's be honest*) and we're left to extrapolate from there.

I don't think this can be a matter of expert authority or detailed knowledge of the extant evidence, it's the kind of thing that will inevitably vary from individual to individual, much less from place to place, over time (who knows, even with personal preference)

While I'm at it, two other things that I refrained from commenting on previously:

No gladiator wore a leopard skin in the arena,

Leopard skin?

Gladiators did not wear sandals.

Sandals of this type or sandals full stop?

*Seen in the difference between the manicae as often represented and as seen in the archaeology.

Einion

 

[secutor]

I find this very interesting post and I am involved because I am a student of the world of the gladiators (about which I'm writing a book) and because I'm a fan of trading cards featuring old people (and Roman gladiators in particular).
Allow me, therefore, to intervene again.
I faced this issue long ago in other places and was described as "rigorous philological" because I maintain that the study of sources - both visual and literary - is crucial if you want to make people trust;
it is the "want to play" at all costs leading the "customization" of the figures, namely the desire to excel at other companies deciding to make naive subjects proposed by "customizing" their products ... with shields and helmets that not even Conan the Barbarian would have suggested!
While acting in this post, I will not speak of this subject in particular, but I will try to put my thoughts down on paper.
There are hundreds of visual sources (mosaics, funerary stelae, bronze, graffiti, etc.) remains the most "direct" (helmets, weapons, etc.). More literary passages of classical writers that well allow us to create subjects of gladiators, and these sources are there for all to see!
About gladiators, there are hundreds of depictions of shields - small, large, round, square, tile, to "iron", flat, hemispherical, with or without umbo - each shouldered a fighter well represented. The problem is that, despite the wealth of findings often unambiguous, many companies continue to offer subjects reconstructed from drawings clearly erroneous and completely different from original sources.
In this regard, if you want, I'll be happy to post some example (source-are included) in private.
Now, if a company decides to build a "crupellarius" should make it a great round shield as a source, not arm it with a small square shield "of dwarf" typical of "thraces"; many pseudo-researchers argue that the shields and small squares are then represented there, so there is no error and a "crupellarius" as might have existed! For me it would only be a subject of fantasy ...!
So that's the biggest mistake of those who make sketches of ancient times, people try to get spectacular mixing elements taken here and there and build an entity that the sources are - unequivocally - different, and there can not then complain if that appear to become the logical target for criticism even from those who know those things.
Sandals were used? Yes, and I make them! Shields round there? Yes, and I make them! This helmet is too “poor”? I do sculpt a more refined and feathered, so there! Unfortunately, this way of work is no well; it would make an Italian partisan of the Second World War with a Corinthian helmet because it is more beautiful than a simple hood of wool?
About shoes, let's call them, most of them wore not by gladiators, but several findings show closed shoes, read objectively and without sole for better grip on the ground, for which, so, is not wrong shoes for play gladiators, but wearing them to anyone.
Robert SECVTOR

 

[pinsel]

hello
well i thing critics which write about such flaws will have to live with the aspect that some people think they want boast with their knowledge and trying to spread their wisdome around.
iam very limited in my articulation in english
i see it this way i like to speak and discuss about figures.i have no one here wich is interesting in them.so i use this forum.
for me its an place where i can learn and inform myself about the scene.
why i am good informed in german army WW2 and some historic figures
iam not in WW2 british american napoleonics ect ect.
so if i paint something of the later and get wrong.i am happy if someone knowing it better gets me some tips what is wrong.i do not consider this as evil spirit.
nobody can be knowing anything about every timeframe.so why do people take such critics not the evil way,and understand it as the whish to disuss such issues.
i never made an single comment about an figure out of the whish to sound nosy.but iam getting more and more concerned that this postings are unwanted and are not liked.
so if we do not want the forum get to am ohhhhhhhhh ahhhhhhhhhhh how nice thing,we should not be upset about critics.
about what shall we discuss shall we write 30 postings how lovely the face is done when its all said in one word NICE.....we call in german such things JUBELPERSER the jubiliant persian..i think this can and shall be more
i am sure NOONE did posting those critics because he wanted to show how intelligent or how well literated he is.all are posted in the true will of discussing things.
for me painting figures is am partial aspect of an true interest in history at all.so i consider my figures not only as painted nice puppets.i want them make as accurate as possible,if i could paint an napoleonic the wrong tunic colour i would be happy to get hint to correct this wrong painting.
so no evil spirits only the whish to discuss issues.
if you annoyed by them you can repost or ignore them.its so easy.but you should not think they are done out of arrogance.
cheers

 

[gordy]

In this regard, if you want, I'll be happy to post some example (source-are included) in private.

Can it be shared publicly, for everyone to benefit?