Colin_Fraser
PlanetFigure Supporter
http://www.wsj.com/articles/photogr...terloo-really-looked-like-1434130881?mod=e2fb
Seems to be an improvement on standard reenactment shots
Seems to be an improvement on standard reenactment shots
What Waterloo "Really" Looked Like
- Thread starter Colin_Fraser
- Start date
Help Support planetFigure:
Martin64
A Fixture
http://www.napolun.com/mirror/napoleonistyka.atspace.com/BATTLE_OF_WATERLOO.htm
Interesting read about the battle. Among the pictures there is one of my favorites when the troops raised from their resting places on the bare ground in the morning. Having spent such a night on an empty stomach after marching through the muddy roads under foul weather the soldiers might have looked different.
Still very nice pictures.
Cheers, Martin
Interesting read about the battle. Among the pictures there is one of my favorites when the troops raised from their resting places on the bare ground in the morning. Having spent such a night on an empty stomach after marching through the muddy roads under foul weather the soldiers might have looked different.
Still very nice pictures.
Cheers, Martin
Gaudin
A Fixture
I prefer the real deal, rather than re-enactors 
http://www.parismatch.com/Culture/Art/Ils-ont-combattu-a-cote-de-Napoleon-780750#
http://www.parismatch.com/Culture/Art/Ils-ont-combattu-a-cote-de-Napoleon-780750#
Colin_Fraser
PlanetFigure Supporter
I prefer the real deal, rather than re-enactors
http://www.parismatch.com/Culture/Art/Ils-ont-combattu-a-cote-de-Napoleon-780750#
Except I don't think those are all original uniforms. Some display a decidedly 2me Empire cut.
Graham
A Fixture
I prefer the real deal, rather than re-enactors
http://www.parismatch.com/Culture/Art/Ils-ont-combattu-a-cote-de-Napoleon-780750#
Number 10 looks a nasty b@@ger! Wouldn't want to mix it with him!
Mat Lambert
A Fixture
Interesting links from every one, thanks.
However I think these images show what the 'soldiers' may have looked like rather than 'Waterloo'.
Cheers
Mat
However I think these images show what the 'soldiers' may have looked like rather than 'Waterloo'.
Cheers
Mat
billyturnip
A Fixture
An accurate period photo of Waterloo. It's ok no need to thank me.
Graham
A Fixture
Lol trust you to do that Rodger
Gaudin
A Fixture
An accurate period photo of Waterloo. It's ok no need to thank me.
Where is platform 9 3/4?
billyturnip
A Fixture
Lol trust you to do that Rodger
I waited a bit to give someone else the chance but as there was no takers....
billyturnip
A Fixture
Gaudin
A Fixture
Thats rivet counting talk, Roger, repent at once!!!
billyturnip
A Fixture
T
TADATSUGU
Guest
I prefer the real deal, rather than re-enactors
I believe these guys are real veterans re-kitted at a later date in, as crf said, 3rd Empire tailored recreations. It is ironic that the real soldiers seemed to be less concerned about the total accuracy of these "costumes" than we, as modellers, are now.
I applaud the new book as a brave attempt to apply a little more realism than usual (although some of the "sitters" used look as old as the ones in the veteran set of pictures
.I have attended a few re-enactments (off to Waterloo again next week - Yipee!). What I do value in the use of re-enactment pictures as a resource, is that you see how the "sit" of equipment varies after a few hours of walking about in them. Look at these new pictures (which also seem to be pretty accurate too); note how the mounted troop's saddle blankets fail to nicely cover all the equipment as they generally do on commercial figures. Note how the crossbelts do not sit nice and squarely over the tunics. A little attention to these aspects would IMO always help improve the look of a model.
The level of accuracy in "what people looked like" will always be open to conjecture. I have recently re-read Mercers journal and he talks about men being caked in mud and having blackened faces. He describes the remnants of the Union Brigade after the battle as mustering in tattered clothing with helmet fittings having been lost or cut in two, etc. Most of us probably want a more conventional model rather than a tattered old tramp, but "the truth" probably lies somewhere in-between.
peedee
A Fixture
David I agree with most of what you say, excep that the way your kit hangs on you depends on how you put it on.
When you wear issued kit for a while day and night you adjust it so that what happend in the portraits doesn't happen.
I am talking about infantry soldiers here first. I have never seen a soldier in an active role, on exercise or in action who's kit is insuch **** order.
Even as a young army cadet wearing men's kit, like the boy drummer, the adults tucked adjusted and helped you look like the real thing.
No actor on TV except veterans ever even wear a simple beret correctly.
Re-enactors, in 99 % of cases are a bag of crap at wearing uniform.
The onlky exception in my lifetime were the original Sabre society. No coincidence that they were martialled by ex forces senior ranks.
In the case of re-enactor cavalry I find it difficult to criticise their use of tack, all I know for sure is one example. During the filming of the 1970's movie the charge of the light brigade, the turkish soldiers and extras used for the cavalry mass found their kit flying everywhere the first time they hit above the canter. With waterbottle, haversack, pouchbelt etc conspiring to throttle the riders after 100 yards at pace. I feel that just serves to suggest the average trooper would have to accept being beaten up by his own kit before the enemy set-to !
Whenever I see reenactors I want to shake them and shout " put it on properly you disrepectful git".
If Martin Tabony is/has seen these photos I would love his opinion.
It just annoys the hell out of me that someone would go to the trouble of spending so much on highland dress to wear it like a potato sack.
Oh I feel so much better for letting all that out.
I'm going for a lie down now in a darkened kit bag and brasso some buttons.
When you wear issued kit for a while day and night you adjust it so that what happend in the portraits doesn't happen.
I am talking about infantry soldiers here first. I have never seen a soldier in an active role, on exercise or in action who's kit is insuch **** order.
Even as a young army cadet wearing men's kit, like the boy drummer, the adults tucked adjusted and helped you look like the real thing.
No actor on TV except veterans ever even wear a simple beret correctly.
Re-enactors, in 99 % of cases are a bag of crap at wearing uniform.
The onlky exception in my lifetime were the original Sabre society. No coincidence that they were martialled by ex forces senior ranks.
In the case of re-enactor cavalry I find it difficult to criticise their use of tack, all I know for sure is one example. During the filming of the 1970's movie the charge of the light brigade, the turkish soldiers and extras used for the cavalry mass found their kit flying everywhere the first time they hit above the canter. With waterbottle, haversack, pouchbelt etc conspiring to throttle the riders after 100 yards at pace. I feel that just serves to suggest the average trooper would have to accept being beaten up by his own kit before the enemy set-to !
Whenever I see reenactors I want to shake them and shout " put it on properly you disrepectful git".
If Martin Tabony is/has seen these photos I would love his opinion.
It just annoys the hell out of me that someone would go to the trouble of spending so much on highland dress to wear it like a potato sack.
Oh I feel so much better for letting all that out.
I'm going for a lie down now in a darkened kit bag and brasso some buttons.
Similar threads
