'First Look' Carthaginian pics!

[fred.]

Looking good. Are the riders going to be separate?

[Techno]

No Fred...Sorry.

Too much of a pain to do them as separate pieces that fit really snugly....To a certain extent, that's why there'll be conversions.

Cheers - Phil

[Dunnadd]

Techno wrote

Going back a tad....I think one of the reasons some of the infantry look a bit 'dark ages; is that I tried to give them a very fine putty beard, and those have come out a little bit on the hirsute side..A bit 'Vikingy' perhaps...Perhaps I should have left that off...A fine beard could always be portrayed with just paint perhaps ?

Maybe, but i think if you were a Liby-Phoenician spearmen stuck in Sicily or Italy or Spain for a decade fighting seemingly endless hordes of dirty feckin Romans you'd probably end up not trimming your beard as often, so hirsute might not always be inaccurate.

Believe it or not....I did try and give some pf them 'ringlets too....Be interesting to see how those come out in the metals.

Nice - look forward to seeing the final figures.

[Techno]

Maybe, but i think if you were a Liby-Phoenician spearmen stuck in Sicily or Italy or Spain for a decade fighting seemingly endless hordes of dirty feckin Romans you'd probably end up not trimming your beard as often, so hirsute might not always be inaccurate.

Nice - look forward to seeing the final figures.

Hot damn !......I hadn't thought of that ! Curse those artists in the books that paint the warriors all neat and  cleanly dressed....and looking as tho' they'd just been to the barbers !!    ......Might have to use that as an excuse in the future.

Cheers - Phil.

[O Dinas Powys]

Ooer !

Now I am getting a bit confused !

From the 'tomes' I've been consulting I was under the impression that the elephants used were the now extinct (?) 'forest' elephants and then more commonly the Indian Elephant.. The Indian elephant was the one that I was using as a basis for the model....
If I've got this bit right.....Hannibal rode the last surviving elephant "that may be identified as the Indian elephant Cato called Surus"

I'll post a piccy up later !.....It's almost finished now. ('Fraid the ears are only a tiny bit bigger tho' Meirion.)

Cheers - Phil

Boo, hiss!  

...although small ears would make the conversion to woolly mammoth easier    

Anyway, last word on elephants - especially since I'm not the target audience for the range - there's a nice coin image on the Hannibal wikipedia page:



...and a bust and fresco on the North African Elephant page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_African_Elephant

Obviously all this evidence is highly weighted to support my own large eared bias    

[Techno]

Look...
Will one of you clever b*ggers hurry up and invent a time machine, so I can go and take some definitive piccies.

We could then find out whether
a) The ancient historians were either wrong or simply guessing.
b) The 'artiste' who did the obverse of the coin had never seen an Indian 'hefferlump' and used a 'big eared' one as inspiration.
c) The 'artiste' was worse than me at sculpting (actually I think that's rather impressive on the coin)....and didn't do ears properly. (I doubt this mad theory...but I thought I'd put it in)
c) The Carthaginian mint were too stingy to make a new stamp to go on the back of the coin, and re-used an old stamp.

'Nellie' can be classed as either an Indian elephant who has ears that are a tad too big....or 'the other type' whose ears are a little on the small side......
How's that for a cop out !

Cheers - Phil 

[Dunnadd]

Techno wrote

Will one of you clever b*ggers hurry up and invent a time machine, so I can go and take some definitive piccies.

We could then find out whether
a) The ancient historians were either wrong or simply guessing.
b) The 'artiste' who did the obverse of the coin had never seen an Indian 'hefferlump' and used a 'big eared' one as inspiration.
c) The 'artiste' was worse than me at sculpting (actually I think that's rather impressive on the coin)....and didn't do ears properly. (I doubt this mad theory...but I thought I'd put it in)
c) The Carthaginian mint were too stingy to make a new stamp to go on the back of the coin, and re-used an old stamp.

Fair point Phil. Historians often disagree on whether ancient sources are reliable on this point or that (especially as some were writing decades - or even sometimes centuries - after the events they were describing ; and were in the pay of certain families who wanted their ancestors to look good)

Having said that some sources that were thought to be just poetic or myth rather than fact have been shown by archaeology to be accurate - e.g Homer's description of the armour and weapons used by ancient Greeks and Trojans in the Iliad; the city of Troy itself

[Techno]

Exactly what I was trying to put across Dunnadd 

I hope humourously.... I wasn't having an artistic hissy fit...I promise !....That's not me at all !

For many of the ancient 'ranges'....I don't believe we'll ever know the absolutely true and definitive answer.
If I may paraphrase...."History is written by the winners"

Some of the photos I've looked at of statues/statuettes from 'ancient' times are basically 'poop'....And even the experts can't agree what they actually portray....I reckon I could do better sculpting with my feet.
Others......Oh...I'm so in awe of the skill of the sculptors.....THE SWINE !

Cheers - Phil.

[OldenBUA]

in the pay of certain families who wanted their ancestors to look good

Yeah, if I were an ancient hefferlump (or slon or whathaveyou) I wouldn't like it if someone said my greatgreatgranddad had big ears! 

[Sandinista]

Yeah, if I were an ancient hefferlump (or slon or whathaveyou) I wouldn't like it if someone said my greatgreatgranddad had big ears! 

Too right, we all know Noddy had him

[FierceKitty]

Techno wrote



Having said that. some sources that were thought to be just poetic or myth rather than fact have been shown by archaeology to be accurate - e.g Homer's description of the armour and weapons used by ancient Greeks and Trojans in the Iliad; the city of Troy itself

Homer's description of the weapons of the period is agreed to be way off target. He only once mentions the pike which was the standard weapon on the heavy infantry (he has an Aias use in it defence of the Danaan ships), only once refers to using a lance from a chariot (Nestor advising the warriors), and time after tedious time has combat settled with javelins, which contemporary accounts make plain were a skirmisher's weapon. Peter Greenhalgh goes into the subject in great depth, also looking at why Homer has such bizarre notions of what you can do in a chariot.

[Dunnadd]

Really? I'm surprised by that - i got the impression from Peter Connolly's books that most people thought Troy didn't exist and that the bronze body armour he talked about hadn't existed, but Troy was found by an excavation in Turkey in the 19th century, along with body armour of the type Homer described.

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

Points you might want to remember about Homer:
1) It was a very very very long time ago! We are reading translations of translations of copies of copies...
2) It was oral story telling, so wasn't written down until years after the first elling.
3) Homer was playing to the crowd.
4) and most importantly, Homer was BLIND! Hence some of his descriptions such as bronze skies!

[Techno]

OI !! Meirion !!

Change your icon back to your icicle thingy......Or you'll get such a smack !! 

I dunno....Some people !

Cheers - A grinning Phil.

[O Dinas Powys]

OI !! Meirion !!

Change your icon back to your icicle thingy......Or you'll get such a smack !! 

I dunno....Some people !

Cheers - A grinning Phil.

   

Is that more to sir's liking?