The EB Face Database: Faces Required For EBII!

http://www.travelblog.org/Photos/4395490

http://www.travelpod.com/travel-phot....jpg/tpod.html

http://www.google.se/imgres?imgurl=h...PQKgwPVM:&tbnh

http://www.flickr.com/photos/istanbu...n/photostream/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/istanbu...n/photostream/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/manondeblois/5188703647/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/brianmorley/3000312124/

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_81MnOiooOX...+%28105%29.jpg

http://www.google.se/imgres?imgurl=h...dSkoTnE0uBMEQf

http://www.google.se/imgres?imgurl=h...tm&usg=__Rn3P8

http://www.flickr.com/photos/istanbulmike/4001279109/

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=...1t:429,r:0,s:0

http://www.google.se/imgres?imgurl=h...&tx=102&ty=126

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius

And you know this based on the extensive photographic evidence from ancient times?

---

My bottom line is purely aesthetic,
I will be completely satisfied with army and generals,
who won´t look like bunch of postmodern facebook whacks.

Since you demand answer for such unusual question,
no I don´t own or know any extensive photographic evidence from ancient times.
I am no historian, but if the memory serves well,
photography is invention of 19th century.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maniro

My bottom line is purely aesthetic,
I will be completely satisfied with army and generals,
who won´t look like bunch of postmodern facebook whacks.

Since you demand answer for such unusual question,
no I don´t own or know any extensive photographic evidence from ancient times.
I am no historian, but if the memory serves well,
photography is invention of 19th century.

---

That was precisely my (facetious) point: how do you have any idea what "looks authentic" when it comes to faces from the ancient world?

I personally have no scientific idea whatsoever
how the ancient peoples looked like, but for example
if the ancient Greeks were stylized in such way Rafael Santi
made them look on his famous "School of Athens" fresco,
I would be excited.

Well ancient people were not very different from us... I mean they had two eyes, one nose, one mouth, .... so I don't know why using pictures of contemporary people would be inaccurate, as far as we don't show modern stuff like piercings, sunglasses, Iphones etc.. If you look at our previews you'll see that our soldiers don't look like the average internet geek.
Eb2 is about realism, so we are not going to make idealized characters like the ones you can see in renaissance paintings. Most soldiers of ancient times were just simple people conscripted in the army.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maniro

I personally have no scientific idea whatsoever
how the ancient peoples looked like, but for example
if the ancient Greeks were stylized in such way Rafael Santi
made them look on his famous "School of Athens" fresco,
I would be excited.

---

What makes an (admittedly famous and well-regarded) Renaissance painter, who probably didn't have much access to good sources, a better judge of what ancient people looked like than a team of historians and enthusiasts?

You do realise most painters tended to simply paint contemporary people (since those were the models available), and even in many instances entirely contemporary settings? Like that massive Altdorfer painting of the battle of Issus, where everyone is dressed in Renaissance, not Hellenistic garb and fighting in the Renaissance manner too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maniro

I personally have no scientific idea whatsoever
how the ancient peoples looked like, but for example
if the ancient Greeks were stylized in such way Rafael Santi
made them look on his famous "School of Athens" fresco,
I would be excited.

---

People look the same now as they did back then, I find it odd that you would think otherwise, it's not like humans have undergone some huge leap in evolution in the last 2000 years.

Soldiers would not all be statuesque, alpha male types either, just as in todays armies you would see a wide range of looks.

That´s bunch of empty talk guys.
During different time periods "the same people" look often very different,
for example everyone know that in medieval period the
average height was below 160 cm for males.
Basically appearance of people mirrored
the nature of "dark age".

Renaissance paintings are not so out of touch with reality
as you try to imply, Socrates on that painting is
as close to reality as possible, based on sources,
so is Aristotle and some others.

Face of malnutritioned human looks other than hardy face.
So is face of athlete-soldier raised in wealthy state different
from face of - lets say - babylonian peasant or contemporary human.
It is just written there.

If someone still does not understand,
this is my point, not "alpha males" or whatever.

(With that said, it does not mean I mock or judge modern
humans or sympathetic enthusiasts who posted their pictures)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maniro

(With that said, it does not mean I mock or judge modern
humans or sympathetic enthusiasts who posted their pictures)

---

Perhaps you shouldn't have referred to post-modern Facebook whacks, then.

I get what you are saying: the hardship of the time would have left its mark on the faces. However, going back to renaissance paintings or even classical sculpture will not help. Those are often idealized scenes about the well-fed, reasonably healthy upper-class, for whom you argument applies less.

Not to mention that many of the classes from which soldiers were drawn (especially cavalry and heavier infantry) were themselves quite well fed and healthy.

It was just clumsy attempt to quickly give you the idea based on
cartoonish comparison which could hurt within the given
context someone´s feelings for which I am sorry.

It obviously does not mean that everybody who post
own picture or have facebook is postmodern whack,
but quite often those two match to extend which is
somehow subconsciously intelligible to anyone.
So it is up to you to judge.

You can give million examples why such
notion is utopian, but is it really that utopian
to ask for some Macedonian generals/elite troops
to resemble Alexander the Great, or that face of
Seleucid FMs would be based on original rulers,
as we know them from coins etc., same with
Rome FMs and for rest of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maniro

You can give million examples why such
notion is utopian, but is it really that utopian
to ask for some Macedonian generals/elite troops
to resemble Alexander the Great, or that face of
Seleucid FMs would be based on original rulers,
as we know them from coins etc., same with
Rome FMs and for rest of them.

---

Coins are stylised profiles, did you even read the requirements for a picture to be used? You're expecting the modeller to make up a face from scratch that fits a crude profile, rather than use a picture that exactly fits what they need?

Again you seem to have this bizarre notion that artwork (which was what coins are also) is photo-realistic and accurate, completely ignoring the license artists take. Usually making their subjects look better than they do in the flesh. Never mind the considerations of mass production and likely the huge variety in appearance of what is ostensibly the same person from one coin to the next.

Oh yes, you are right, now we are ready to troll all day
long about what is "artistic license" and what is "accurate",
you seem to always know what is wrong, but at the same
time your position seems to relativize completely everything.

So I just ask how could you know something is wrong, if you
are unable to describe what is right, but most mysterious of
all, without seeing that particular person in person, or talking
with its sketch´s creator you are perfectly ready to say the
artist meant to create it with "artistic license".

There is no objective right or wrong here, your mistake is to think there is one in the first place.

Maniro, ancient sculptors weren't accurate portraitists of an individual ruler's physiognomy - they were creators of highly politicized 'portrait types' which were conceptualized, stylized and idealized for a specific audience utilizing a 'repertoire' of preexistent motives (e.g. Lysippos' famous portrait of Alexander, ...) - they were propaganda instruments and vehicles of ideological agendas. Likewise, the emphasis of coin portraits wasn't on an 'photographically' realistic portrayal of an ruler but on conveying a easily recognizable, distinct physiognomy.

Even portraits of private individuals are often heavily stylized and formalized to keep in trend with fashion and aesthetic preferences - look e.g. at the Fayum mummy portraits. Even the famous Roman Late Republican portraits with their apparent extreme naturalism are products of an specific ideology and can't be taken as realistic portrayals.

If there is no objective right or wrong,
does it mean that they did not exist?

That is all fine,
but why should you prefer face
of modern people, instead of say
something which would resemble
ancient people, even if such appearance
was often adjusted for political agenda.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maniro

If there is no objective right or wrong,
does it mean that they did not exist?

That is all fine,
but why should you prefer face
of modern people, instead of say
something which would resemble
ancient people, even if such appearance
was often adjusted for political agenda.

---

There is no objective right and wrong here because we don't know what ancient people actually looked like and have no way of knowing*.

Which makes your entire notion that you personally could assess whether or not something "resembles ancient people" completely ridiculous. This idea in your head that you know what ancient people look like is nonsense, its your own prejudices and assumptions about what you think they should be. That's entirely subjective. I mean seriously, you take Renaissance paintings, by artists who probably know a lot less than the EB team do about the period and its people, as persuasive sources.

*Well, we could do computer reconstruction on any skulls that survived, such as those from Pompeii, but even that is an estimate which is based on the geometries of modern faces. There's an inherent assumption there that the fundamentals of the human form are unchanged. 2500 years is a tiny flash in the 100,000 years homo sapiens has been around. It is nothing in the scheme of evolution, and thus there's no reason to assume ancient people were meaningfully different from modern ones. Thus its pretty safe to use the faces of modern people.

Quintus, I actually think Maniro has a point here. Your average legionary or farmer would bear physiological and psychological marks of childhood deprivation due to famine and disease. Our faces would look soft (more fat*, less stress) in comparison. (* with fat I don't mean "overweight"; just not as lean as people who often get too little food).

Maniro loses me when he suggest we use renaissance paintings and sculptures of upper-class Greeks to address this, for the reasons mentioned above. Also, is the difference substantial enough to be noticeable in the M2:TW engine?

In any case: the team has to implement hundreds of faces, and not just of Hellenes and Romans. Asking for pictures of fans and athletes is simply the most practical solution. Unless you are volunteering to do the reconstruction and modeling yourself, off course.

Sure we have, it is called classical antiquity.
Where would they get sense or facial features,
somatic proportions and everything else,
if certain number of such people never existed?

If some portraits were adjusted for social reality does
it follow they are complete fiction? If media "use photoshop"
to "glamorize" Adriana Lima, does it mean Adriana Lima never existed
or that the "photoshop version" should be considered "bizarre" science-fiction?

Taking into consideration engine limitations, it would turn out
that gear and helmets would kill all those little nuances, but perhaps
similar philosophy could be used when creating portrait icons for
various FM.

Firstly, Maniro, these aren't faces for the advisors. They're faces for the units, the M2:TW engine allows a much greater deal of customisation (so no more identikit soldiers who all look exactly the same).

Secondly, if you really, really want to see something in EBII, the best way to make it so is volunteer your services to help the team make it so. See here for what they need.

I really fail to see why this argument is still running, human faces today would not look significantly different from those of EB's time period. Yes poor nutrition would have had it's effects but this only applies to some of our units and it's not like there aren't people today that don't live in the same circumstances (we are not just using fans and sports players you know).

And it won't matter for FM portraits because they represent the aristocracy of a faction and so would be very well fed. The only thing we have to worry about there is getting the right ethnic group.
We are going to keep RTW vanilla portraits for now though, in the future we might wish to create our own but nothing has been decided yet.

This is internet forum. As long as member
sticks to the point and does not pick up fights, all
kinds of opinions are undoubtably welcomed.

If I "lobby" for something, it does not mean
I am on some kind of white horse and know
everything best, I come with no such ambition.

It is just obvious that legion made up of modern wimps would resemble at best
some Historic Channel piece featuring plenty of student supernumeraries.
Men back than were "hardened" not only by various physiological defects, but
also by "mental defects", as most of them were something of a brutalized melee serial killers.

So if some disapprove classic art as "bizarre" and "fictional", perhaps even those might
agree that faces from categories of criminal convicts would be more suitable than faces
of students and soccer players.

I recall even some EB trait says something of "If you kill one person you are criminal,
if you kill million you are great hero". Perhaps pictures featuring various modern
veterans with post traumatic stress disorder would be good approach too.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

http://cache4.asset-cache.net/xc/713...6BF04B24B4128C

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...ffho4twcfsTNPg

Furthermore I am indeed ready to acknowledge that ancient people
DID exist. Therefore large degree of their appearance based
on various sources could be described or reconstructed.

If your absurd relativist view ran out of steam just don´t answer.
I don´t need you to hint I don´t know difference of advisors to
battle-map units. I also don´t need you to give me such "priceless" advice as
"to do something myself", this is thread about the kind of faces which should
be used, for which I don´t need to be EB team member, 2D/3D artist
to discuss it or offer advices.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maniro

This is internet forum. As long as member
sticks to the point and does not pick up fights, all
kinds of opinions are undoubtably welcomed.

---

Describing the people who posted their faces in this thread as wimps seems like picking a fight to me.

Drop this particular discussion, please. This applies to everyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maniro

this is thread about the kind of faces which should
be used, for which I don´t need to be EB team member, 2D/3D artist
to discuss it or offer advices.

---

This is not a thread about the kinds of faces to be used in EBII, it is merely a collection point for images, the faces that get used are chosen by the teams historians during the unit making process.

Sorry Ludens I just felt I had to clear up this last point, consider it dropped now.

I really think this discussion should stop, fisrt of all because the EB team has already made their decission to use the faces we post (thats why this thread was started all these months ago) and secondly because it is tiring to read.
Instead of that, post more faces.
Maniro, if you want hardened criminal faces, post some more of them, and let the moddelers make their choises....

It would be fun if somebody could post some Cretan faces!
Imajine cretan archers like him!

http://www.google.dk/imgres?imgurl=h...1t:429,r:0,s:0

What would a latin american with caucasian skin be classified as? Northern or Southern european?

~Jirisys ()

Any units need a Scottish/Northern British face, if so happy to oblige!

Before anyone points out I am aware the Scots did not exist at this point so I substitute Caledonian if it makes people happy (Vartan, i'm thinking of you :jester:).

well, not a perfect picture, but pretty interesting: a man from Tihama, complete with flowers on his head:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mytrips...1545/lightbox/

Tihama is the coastal region along the western margin of Arabia-this custom is mostly associated with the section south of Jidda, north of Bab al-mandib.

EDIT: old man from region of Abha:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mytrips...7623248022452/

some more pics: fraid they're too small, but I try.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3087/...3f38cb68b9.jpg

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...Nl6xg_nYFA&t=1