Painting Persians

[martin goddard]

B, C Persian attendants.
B=Median  servant about to help his master mount his horse.
C=Persian robed....

see plate 1 too.
man in trousers = Median dress
2 men in long robes = Persian dress.


Plate 2 figure C (spearman at front)
He wears the median costume that Persian troops wore on campaign.



This book can be bought on Ebay if you need to find it Neil.


martin

[Panzer21]

I am going to cordially disagree with you Neil.

The way I read it, is that the median version is the trouser and shorter top (Duncan Head).
The longer top often covering over an inner sleeved top is the "Persian" style.
I don't think it  makes a lot of difference to gamers?

I believe I am competent at doing research. You obviously disagree.

You make  assumptions about what books I do and do not have. 
Is it possible that anyone has read  as much as you?
Is it because my conclusions show you that I have no idea about what I am sculpting?

If you wish me to acknowledge you as the better and more knowing authority on all matters then consider it done.


I do not think we will ever agree Neil, so maybe best to leave it alone?
Otherwise feel welcome to argue, but please do so in a collegiate manner.

martin  

Martin,
Firstly I did not intend to offend, claim greater knowledge or criticise your research or sculpting.
I was attempting to contribute.

You may be correct about Mede v Persian dress I was working from memory. Given the limited sources it's difficult to be certain of much. One academic suggests it's more helpful to call it Court dress and Riding dress.

I have no idea what books or sources you used and didn't infer I have better. I mentioned the Montvert book.

I asked what the source was of the headgear being two-part as I have never seen this asserted. That's all.

If you wish to take offence, that is your prerogative. It was not my intent. I suspect it is the lack of nuance that comes from forums / email which suggested some tone or inference that wasn't intended.

This does make me reconsider contributing in future or even remaining on the forum; life is far too short.

Neil

[Sean Clark]

I think cordial disagreement is fine! Different sources will 9ften conflict and at some point you have to nail your colours to the mast and say this is my understanding. Especially if you're a figure sculptor.

From what I understand this is a disagreement over what colour the headress was - a single colour or more than more colour.

No need to leave, Neil. You're right that intent and meaning often get lost in the written form. Much easier face to face 

[Panzer21]

I think cordial disagreement is fine! Different sources will 9ften conflict and at some point you have to nail your colours to the mast and say this is my understanding. Especially if you're a figure sculptor.

From what I understand this is a disagreement over what colour the headress was - a single colour or more than more colour.

No need to leave, Neil. You're right that intent and meaning often get lost in the written form. Much easier face to face 

Thanks Sean.

I suspect much has "got lost in translation" for want of a better simile.

I'm motivated partly by knowing what colour I should paint miniature Persian headgear; obviously I could paint it any colour if I wanted.
All the hats on the Alexander Mosaic are yellow, from memory so are the Alexander Sarcophagus trace colours revealed by x-ray. Again from memory there's a painting of what is usually rendered as a slinger with a white hat. There are lots of modern reconstructions that have white, but usually no source is given.

Martin suggested TWO headdresses a cloth one with a cap on top and that these could be different colours. This is a new one on me and I was curious where it came from.

The problem is even academics cannot even agree what it was called kyrbasia, kidaris, kitaris, tiara are all used with disagreement that they are the same thing.
The hats of the ancient near east link has lots of statue and coin pictures. A close up of one of the Alexander Sarcophagus heads has a cloth version with it wrapped around the lower face. Some angles make it look like a separate face scarf, but as far as I know all authorities suggest one piece.

There were taboos around the breath "polluting" the recipient and magi wore face masks. There is some source that says the kyrbasia or whatever you want to call it should be wrapped around the face when speaking to the King.

So does any of this matter?
Unless you are OCD, probably not.
I'm not even aware you could tell if Martin's figures have one or two headresses on them! I wouldn't have even thought about looking for two until Martin mentioned it!

I'm sure they would look fine if painted one or two colours.

I also wonder if Martin thought my mention of the Osprey related to him; it didn't. It was in response to earlier posts where people had mentioned buying it.
A bit too much purple and yellow combos for me personally.....
I've seen at least one wargames army painted using it as a reference. It was certainly "striking" if a little bright!

Neil

[Smiley Miley 66]

Neil, I usually cross reference any distance knowledge or memory through Google first, it's not the be all of everything but if your not sure on a fact if there's no truth in it it usually tells you one way or another.
At least with google it might refer to your sources old and new ? Then can help confirm whether you were dreaming or if fact you were right or way off with your theory and thoughts ?
Because we can all be guarded with our knowledge of something especially if we might think we were right or wrong with it ?
Having had a few disagreements intended or not on here over the years ?
That's my thoughts and advise ? At least you can stand there with some conviction that you might be right ?
As we all know history can have many sources? Some reveal revelation others complete untruths?
For Example:-
Bridge too Far, great book and a great film.
But unfortunately only highlights a part of the operation but to the average punter shows this is what happens ? But when you delve into it this is in fact Not the whole operation and the many parts that happened are not discussed or brought under the spotlight ? But that's for another discussion! One to me shows how some things can be missed or told in a very narrow point of view ? So can be used as a great example that yes true, it is far from the whole story !
Miles

[Sean Clark]

All good points.

I've seen a lot of yellow and purple Persian armies, to the point where its the first thing I think of when they come up in discussion.

I rather like how Stewart amd Martins figures look and will go with that for mine. I'll be starting my Persian cavalry this afternoon.

Now...what about colours for Hoplites 😂

[martin goddard]

Hello Neil
I think the matter about mede/persian dress on the PP figures will remain as disputed ,I accept that.
Not a problem for gamers I hope?

I certainly don't want to lose you from the group Neil. So please stay.

I will restrict my comments about the figures in order to concentrate on the upcoming big game at Society of Ancients  day.


martin

[Panzer21]

Hello Neil
I think the matter about mede/persian dress on the PP figures will remain as disputed ,I accept that.
Not a problem for gamers I hope?

I certainly don't want to lose you from the group Neil. So please stay.

I will restrict my comments about the figures in order to concentrate on the upcoming big game at Society of Ancients  day.


martin

Thanks Martin.

At the end of the day none of this really matters to anyone but button counters!
Figure designers also have to produce something tangible based on something as Sean says.

The figures are very nice. I assume a scythed chariot is next?

Neil

[Panzer21]

Neil, I usually cross reference any distance knowledge or memory through Google first, it's not the be all of everything but if your not sure on a fact if there's no truth in it it usually tells you one way or another.
At least with google it might refer to your sources old and new ? Then can help confirm whether you were dreaming or if fact you were right or way off with your theory and thoughts ?
Because we can all be guarded with our knowledge of something especially if we might think we were right or wrong with it ?
Having had a few disagreements intended or not on here over the years ?
That's my thoughts and advise ? At least you can stand there with some conviction that you might be right ?
As we all know history can have many sources? Some reveal revelation others complete untruths?
For Example:-
Bridge too Far, great book and a great film.
But unfortunately only highlights a part of the operation but to the average punter shows this is what happens ? But when you delve into it this is in fact Not the whole operation and the many parts that happened are not discussed or brought under the spotlight ? But that's for another discussion! One to me shows how some things can be missed or told in a very narrow point of view ? So can be used as a great example that yes true, it is far from the whole story !
Miles

Thanks Miles, you're right memory is a poor substitute for solid fact.
I just wish there was a better way to impart more meaning to the written word; so often it comes across in the wrong way or is interpreted in ways not intended. Aside from putting in lots of riders "this is not intended as criticism" or similar I don't know of any and even these can be read as "well that's OK BUT...."

It's back to that percentage on non-verbal communication we rely on.

I'll shut up now...☺

Neil

[Sean Clark]

Smileys often help! 😁😆

[Smiley Miley 66]

I know how you feel Neil. That's why nowadays I will try and check and double check facts, before I come on here. Yes sometimes what you want to express and how it's written can be very different? I ve been on at least a few of those heated discussions on here.
It's life.
But I must admit being a beginner with this sort of warfare, the Cavalry will be the first units of pre WOR era I ve ever done. As forces of the 20th Century is my usual "playground" !
As an observer and newbie to this era, there does seems to be a lot of Yellow and Purple in the "whole Uniforms" in the Osprey book ? Is this right ? Or is it just bright colours ?
I always thought in that era Purple was a colour afforded to the rich only as it was very expensive to make ?  I think Yellow can come from Saffron or is it just orange?
So without trying to start any arguments is Yellow in the Osprey book over represented ?
Miles

[Sean Clark]

Miles...that's my understanding  too. I must admit to feeling a bit intimidated at painting these 'right', but I suspect there is  o right, just a best guess.

[Colonel Kilgore]

You and me both, Sean, as I contemplate putting paint on brush this week!

I must say that the uniformed yellow and purple figures in the Osprey book had struck me as weird, so am pleased that Neil has been able to provide some perspective here. Having bought the Osprey for painting inspiration, I am pretty disappointed with it. Instead of the usual diversity of illustrations in an Osprey, most plates are extremely similar.

I very much like the grittier style on the Montvert cover. I just wish I'd bought this book when it first came out.

I think it will be interesting to see what we all come up withfor Persian colour schemes.

Simon

[Martin Smith]

Miles...that's my understanding  too. I must admit to feeling a bit intimidated at painting these 'right', but I suspect there is  no right, just a best guess.

Absolutely, Sean, it's a challenge, and agreed with Simon's comments :- The Osprey illustrator seems to imagine that ancient cloth makers would have access to modern dyes or polyester cloth colourings, whereas in reality colours for the vast majority of any army of the age would probably have been very muted / dull. Most of the soldiery might well have been in 'natural' cloth colours...white / beige/ greys.

The Montvert pics always struck me a 'spot on', in terms of possible realism... eg the two general's attendants in the earlier posted pics struck me as 'highly believable'.

However, we're playing toy soldiers, so 'anything goes' 😁.

[Leman (Andy)]

I just wish I'd bought this book when it first came out.

I notice the artwork is credited to Rick Scollins. He was teaching art in my school when I was in the sixth form, and I'm now 73. Rick died in 1992, which was a great loss to military art, but it suggests to me that this book was first published many years ago, maybe in the 80s or very early 90s.