Please refrain from posting animated GIFs, memes, joke videos and so on in discussions other than those in the off topic area.

Dismiss this message to confirm your acceptance of this additional forum term of use.

Collectible Minifigures - Historical chronology

SparkyHamSparkyHam Bristol, UKMember Posts: 133
Has anyone managed to list the "historical" collectible mini figures in chronological order? i.e.


Caveman (and woman)
Egyptian King (and Queen)
Aztec Warrior
Spartan Warrior
Roman Centurion (and soldier)
...
...
... etc
Pirate
Cowboys

I'm considering giving it a go, but wondering if anyone has already done it.

Cheers.

«1

Comments

  • TheLoneTensorTheLoneTensor MericaMember Posts: 3,950
    @HaleAFOL is that you? :)
    SumoLegoPitfall69MrJ_NYBumblepants
  • HaleAFOLHaleAFOL Member Posts: 58
    Nope sorry @TheLoneTensor ;
    MrJ_NY
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 17,707
    You're going to need to move the Aztec down the list.

    You will get a problem deciding on the dates of some of them. For example, the Muskeeter, are you going to assume late 1600s or early 1800s. The actor, are you assuming Shakespearean era, or later? Egyptian Pharaoh and Queen could be 1000 years apart. The Queen could be Cleopatra and so overlap or be after some Roman ones, or be 1000 years before.

    The island warrior is perhaps the biggest headache, as it could span a few millennia - it could be at the start or at the end.
    SumoLegoicey117sandune
  • ShibShib UKMember Posts: 5,188
    To tag onto CCC's assessment, it would probably be easier if you sort them geographically, then chronologically. It wouldn't completely solve the issues but would make some of them easier.
  • leego76leego76 Chandlers FordMember Posts: 360
    No need for the space marines until we've discovered the aliens themselves and they the start playing up, or have much needed / valued resources we need to liberate..
  • SumoLegoSumoLego New YorkMember Posts: 11,856
    Vampires can exist for millenia...
    yys4ucatwrangler
  • bendybadgerbendybadger 127.0.0.1 ::1Member Posts: 1,141
    and what date is the Zombie Apocalypse starting?
      
    TheBigLegoskipharmjodSumoLegobobabricks
  • dannyrwwdannyrww WisconsinMember Posts: 1,330
    I have most organized into a timeline for my classroom...sadly they are put away for the summer...now to be fair some of them you have to decide which point in history it represents. Some are easy (William Wallace, Abe Lincoln, George Washington). With Pharaoh for instance I went with the time of Ramses II, but that is often debated as well. At any rate Egypt is at the beginning of my time line. Samurai are tricky as they have been around from 1000s or so all the way to the 1800s. For ones like that I try to find the earliest occurring date or a date tied to a major event. Vikings for instance i tie to Eric the Red discovering the Americas (his son Lief was the first to settle).  When I get them out to set up for the school year I will list them for you.
    MasterBeefy
  • DoubleDDoubleD Oklahoma, USAMember Posts: 488
    Alien then space marine then zombie. We need the space marines to fight the aliens, as @leego76 stated no need for marines till we find aliens. Which then the aliens begin chemical warfare that brings the zombie apocalypse 
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 17,707
    dannyrww said:
    Some are easy (William Wallace, Abe Lincoln, George Washington). With Pharaoh for instance I went with the time of Ramses II, but that is often debated as well. 
    There haven't been William Wallace or George Washington CMFs. There are ones that look like Mel Gibson's character in Braveheart, although to me it looks more like Christopher Lambert's Highlander (but the lego bio uses a phrase from Braveheart). Similarly, the Revolutionary Soldier is fairly generic and not specifically Washington. Thus they are not so easy to date unambiguously.
    TheBigLegoski
  • TheLoneTensorTheLoneTensor MericaMember Posts: 3,950
    Well, the revolutionary soldier is still quite easy to date (1776-1781)ish, even though he's not Washington.
    Pitfall69pharmjod
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 17,707
    Or a little later if you identify him as a French revolutionary. Not having a hat makes it difficult to pin-point were he is from.
    Pitfall69SumoLego
  • dannyrwwdannyrww WisconsinMember Posts: 1,330
    CCC said:
    dannyrww said:
    Some are easy (William Wallace, Abe Lincoln, George Washington). With Pharaoh for instance I went with the time of Ramses II, but that is often debated as well. 
    There haven't been William Wallace or George Washington CMFs. There are ones that look like Mel Gibson's character in Braveheart, although to me it looks more like Christopher Lambert's Highlander (but the lego bio uses a phrase from Braveheart). Similarly, the Revolutionary Soldier is fairly generic and not specifically Washington. Thus they are not so easy to date unambiguously.
    Agreed that they are generic. The reason I tie a particular person to them is because it allows them to be placed easier in a time line. Perhaps by saying they were easy I jumped a little ahead of myself. Lincoln is the only one I listed that is actually named. I guess I went with what I thought they were obviously inspired by but that really is just my interpretation.
  • dannyrwwdannyrww WisconsinMember Posts: 1,330
    For what its worth they do use the Revolutionary soldier in images for the Lego Americana Road show implying that he is American Revolution if not Washington
  • TheBigLegoskiTheBigLegoski Amsterdam, NederlandMember Posts: 1,320
    ^ The wig wearing eighteenth century soldier could just as well portray some generic character from one of the many European armies or navies of that period. Lots of countries from that time had regiments with blue uniforms.
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 17,707
    Yeah, I'm sure he is American but one of the strengths of the CMF series is that they do tend to be fairly generic, meaning people are open to put some of their own interpretation on the figures. Just like I'm sure the Royal Guard and police constable are British although they could fit in other peoples' alternative interpretations.
  • TheLoneTensorTheLoneTensor MericaMember Posts: 3,950
    edited June 2015
    This is an interesting discussion.  Powdered wigs were generally out of style in the latest parts of the 18th century, and dead by 1800, in fact, the French revolutionists wouldn't be caught dead wearing that which is symbolic of those they were rebelling against (the wig-wearing feudal aristocracy).

    Between that and the coloring and style of the uniform, I'm leaning about 95% that he's an American revolutionary.
  • TheBigLegoskiTheBigLegoski Amsterdam, NederlandMember Posts: 1,320
    If Lego were to organise some sort of traveling expo (I assume that is what the Lego Americana Road show is?!) here in some countries in Europe they can just as easily use that particular minifig to advertise it, especially if they were to focus on some historic events.

    Also this minifig is a young adult male with brown eyebrows. George Washington never wore a wig, even though he had long hair, and he did have it powdered and curled. So it cannot be George Washington, because than they should have given that minifig an older face with a different colour eyebrows, and instead of a gun some other prop which might signify him like e.g.: Julius Cesar with his 'Veni, Vidi, Vici' scroll. In revolutionary France and in the newly created United states the wearing of wigs being a symbol of social status was largely abandoned by the start of the 19th century. It seems unlikely that an American revolutionary soldier would be wearing a wig. Wigs were not only often lice magnets but also expensive, and soldiers (not talking about officers) were 'commoners' of whom most never wore these things.
  • TheLoneTensorTheLoneTensor MericaMember Posts: 3,950
    edited June 2015
    It's certainly not George Washington, mostly because you wouldn't likely find Washington walking around carrying a rifle or musket.  As for the hair habits of soldiers, most American revolutionary officers, did in fact, wear powdered wigs.  Btw, officers are soldiers too.

    And lice magnets?  Wigs were partially invented for the very reason of lice, in that people with real hair didn't know how to take care of it, and didn't have Head and Shoulders, so lice was rampant.  What better way to prevent lice from infesting your hair than to have the hair removable.
  • TheBigLegoskiTheBigLegoski Amsterdam, NederlandMember Posts: 1,320
    ^Yeah that is what I wrote. Soldier not officer, because those did wear wigs. Also officers to my knowledge did not bear muskets, but swords/sabres and pistols, which is another indication that this minifig is a footsoldier.

    As to the wigs and the lice, it is indeed true that their popularity sprang in part from practically, not only to improve on ones appearance (to compensate for hair loss or just to make a more grandiose impression), but also because many people shaved their hair because of poor hygiene, no shampoo, lice being rampant. Still these wigs not seldom also were utter breeding grounds for head lice, being made from human or horse hair. So it often only reduced this problem somewhat. People from the eighteenth century were by our hygiene and sanitation standards just a bunch of filthy dirty buggers, rich or poor!
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 17,707
    Did soldiers tend to have hats then? They are normally pictured with bi or tri corns. At least, that's what my revolutionary soldiers wear, as the hair pieces all got moved to my naval admirals for my ships. 
  • TheBigLegoskiTheBigLegoski Amsterdam, NederlandMember Posts: 1,320
    As far as I know up until the 1950s it was common for all men both civilians as well as the military to be wearing hats. If you did not wear a hat (except indoors) you would not only stand out, but would even be considered not fully dressed. If you look at historical paintings depicting battles, all the soldiers were always shown wearing hats.
    Check out those painting from the battle of Waterloo:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Waterloo
    The cocked hats (tri and bi corner) were I believe more 18th century fashion, in the 19th century they started wearing those cylindrical hats/caps also known as shakos, or bearskin fur hats like the ones the ceremonial Royal Guards at Buckingham Palace still wear. I don't know if those type of hats are also called shakos?!
  • tratclifftratcliff Member Posts: 13
    I'm no expert, but I think the samurai are from the Sengoku Period (c. 1467 to c. 1603) from the style of armor.

    The Egyptian Soldier, with the distinctive Egyptian curved sword in pearl gold is definitely late Bronze Age. 
    dannyrww
  • TheLoneTensorTheLoneTensor MericaMember Posts: 3,950
    edited June 2015
    ^Yeah that is what I wrote. Soldier not officer.
    I know you wrote that, and that's why I subsequently wrote that officers are soldiers also, so this guy could be an officer.  Given he's carrying a musket, if I were to peg the actual rank that engages in front-line fighting and armaments, I'd say he's likely a lieutenant, maybe even a captain.  Sabres and sidearms only?  That armament was more for colonels+ (and sometimes majors).

    One more thing about the wigs.  Your statement was that "wigs were lice magnets," indicating that soldiers (or anyone) would not wear them because of the reason they would be lice-ridden.  It's the opposite actually.  Vain folks very likely would have chosen a wig over baldness back then, knowing that it's much easier to delouse a wig than a human head.
  • dannyrwwdannyrww WisconsinMember Posts: 1,330
    I am really loving this discussion by the way. It is really neat to see all the different historical facts and interpretations of these historical minifigigures. These are what got me into Lego. 
    TheLoneTensoricey117
  • dannyrwwdannyrww WisconsinMember Posts: 1,330
    tratcliff said:
    I'm no expert, but I think the samurai are from the Sengoku Period (c. 1467 to c. 1603) from the style of armor.

    The Egyptian Soldier, with the distinctive Egyptian curved sword in pearl gold is definitely late Bronze Age. 
    Thanks for the info on the samurai particularly. I might do some research on that as I would like to get him in a better place on my timeline.
  • ravnutravnut South BrumMember Posts: 23
    The alien could be from anytime in the past!

    A long time ago in a galaxy far far away... And all that.

    And we all know aliens built the pyramids and Stonehenge!  :)
    dannyrwwdatsunrobbie560Heliport
  • IstokgIstokg MichiganMember Posts: 2,096
    edited June 2015
    I take it you people reeeeeeally don't have anything to do this summer.......    B)

    You know what this means, don't you?   This means that you're going to have to open your wall mounted minfig shadow boxes and do some serious re-arranging.....  :#

    P.S.   Good luck with the minifigs during the time of legends....  does Ragnarok come before Lord of the Rings?   :o
    TheBigLegoskidannyrwwoldtodd33Fizyx560Heliport
  • tratclifftratcliff Member Posts: 13
    A few more, without doing any research.

    Tribal Warrior (Indian), Tribal Chief -- might owe more to Hollywood than anything historical, but probably from a Plains tribe, 18th-19th century

    Kimono Girl -- I know almost nothing about kimono styles, but probably anywhere from Edo Period (ca 1610) to present.

    Viking, Viking Woman -- real Vikings didn't wear horned helmets LOL, so they're from a Wagner opera (historian rant over).

    Tomahawk Warrior -- quite possibly a Mohawk tribesman from around Lake Ontario. Since he does have a tomahawk, that would be around 1640-1800.

    Swashbuckler -- has a cup-hilt rapier and a slouch hat (I think that's the right phrase) with plume, so 1600-1800

    Classic King -- doublet and hose, ermine shawl, but a full beard. Maybe 16th century. 
  • 77ncaachamps77ncaachamps Aspiring Time Traveler Stuck in the West (US)Member Posts: 2,439
    ^Yeah that is what I wrote. Soldier not officer.
    I know you wrote that, and that's why I subsequently wrote that officers are soldiers also, so this guy could be an officer.  Given he's carrying a musket, if I were to peg the actual rank that engages in front-line fighting and armaments, I'd say he's likely a lieutenant, maybe even a captain.  Sabres and sidearms only?  That armament was more for colonels+ (and sometimes majors).

    One more thing about the wigs.  Your statement was that "wigs were lice magnets," indicating that soldiers (or anyone) would not wear them because of the reason they would be lice-ridden.  It's the opposite actually.  Vain folks very likely would have chosen a wig over baldness back then, knowing that it's much easier to delouse a wig than a human head.
    Reminds me of the word "merkin" which I learned from an Anthony Bourdain's "Layover" episode.
  • dannyrwwdannyrww WisconsinMember Posts: 1,330
    tratcliff said:
    A few more, without doing any research.

    Tribal Warrior (Indian), Tribal Chief -- might owe more to Hollywood than anything historical, but probably from a Plains tribe, 18th-19th century

    Kimono Girl -- I know almost nothing about kimono styles, but probably anywhere from Edo Period (ca 1610) to present.

    Viking, Viking Woman -- real Vikings didn't wear horned helmets LOL, so they're from a Wagner opera (historian rant over).

    Tomahawk Warrior -- quite possibly a Mohawk tribesman from around Lake Ontario. Since he does have a tomahawk, that would be around 1640-1800.

    Swashbuckler -- has a cup-hilt rapier and a slouch hat (I think that's the right phrase) with plume, so 1600-1800

    Classic King -- doublet and hose, ermine shawl, but a full beard. Maybe 16th century. 
    But here you bring up a good point with the tribal Chief....and for that matter the vikings. Most of these are not based on a true historical interpretation, but rather a filtered view through Hollywood or literature, or even just pop culture. Its interesting that my first thought is that the Revolutionary soldier was George Washington, most of the facts that were listed about wigs and such are things I am aware of (though not always at the forefront of my mind), but to any of my students if I were to show them this minifigure (or many adults) George Washington would be what comes to mind because their is a collective perception of things from history (we could check to see if he has wooden teeth or that he chopped down a cherry tree, but again we would be catering to a perception and legend rather than reality). I love these minifigures, and of course i will make them whoever I want. Perhaps that is the point of them being so vague (though arguably some should be named and not historical one necessarily.... Grandma Visitor...Really?!?!)
  • dannyrwwdannyrww WisconsinMember Posts: 1,330
    on the note of the King, I put him on the timeline for Arthur...which again is a character that are perception is based more on legend than reality.
  • dannyrwwdannyrww WisconsinMember Posts: 1,330
    Spartan warrior actually is more historically accurate than the movie 300 oddly enough. Schleich did figures that have the Spartan's bare chested. No Spartan would have gone into battle without his armor. I like to call him Leonidas, but if that were true he would have his crest turned to the side. He is pretty good for a Spartan warrior though. Now I just need 299 more (which would also be a perception of history thing...and while Lego makes a Thespian the ones that stayed with Leonidas and the gang were not that type of Thespian).
  • SumoLegoSumoLego New YorkMember Posts: 11,856
    I assumed the Viking Woman is from the Opera, and not the historic figure.

    And good luck putting a date on the female samurai...
  • SumoLegoSumoLego New YorkMember Posts: 11,856
    ^ I meant that literally.
  • SumoLegoSumoLego New YorkMember Posts: 11,856
    Same applies to Athena and Medusa...
  • TheBigLegoskiTheBigLegoski Amsterdam, NederlandMember Posts: 1,320
    @TheLoneTensor

    So our main contention is whether or not this 18th century historically inspired minifig is just an enlisted soldier or an officer of some rank. I am inclined to think based on his torso print he is an infantry soldier, not an officer, even though most regular soldiers did not wear wigs, but only hats. Though the wigs of those times resembled the hairstyle that was in fashion then, namely long (shoulder length or longer) hair for men often worn in a ponytail, and many people today dressing up as colonial soldiers in battle re-enactments will wear wigs to emulate the look and fashion style of those times as close as possible, or to their best knowledge of those times, this does not mean wigs were worn by the majority of men.  Since as I argued: wigs were a sign of class distinction, as well as quite expensive, and 'regular' (private) soldiers were commoners, not only holding the lowest rank in an army, but usually also poor and of very low social station in whatever society from which they were drafted or hired, the primary reason most regular soldiers did not wear them was class distinction as well as affordability. Wigmakers were also considered quite prestigious craftsmen united in guilds. It was not primarily vanity that made everyone of all those belonging to the aristocracy wear a wig, their social rank made it obligatory. Social constraints do not only apply to the lower classes, but also to the elite, hence the expression 'Noblesse oblige'. The aristocracy emulates the tastes and whims of the highest ranking among them. So when e.g. Louis XIV fashioned himself in a certain way, all others at his court would follow suit yet careful not to outdo him lest they fall out of favour with him. The Sun King's influence even extended to other neighbouring and rivalling aristocracies, as well as patrician merchant class families (such as in the Dutch Republic) who would adopt and copy his favoured style (in architecture, art, and dress etcetera).

    Unless, as was the case in Europe in some regiments, the ruling monarch or commanding officer/feudal lord decreed this wig was part of their uniform and provided these items alongside the rest of all their garments and weaponry at his expense, private soldiers did not wear them.

    I thought this quote from General George Washington to be interesting:
    "As the Continental Army has unfortunately no uniforms, and consequently many inconveniences must arise from not being able to distinguish the commissioned officers from the privates, it is desired that some badge of distinction be immediately provided; for instance that the field officers may have red or pink colored cockades in their hats, the captains yellow or buff, and the subalterns green.""
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_Army#Rank_insignia

    This minifig I think is more of an archetypical design of a soldier of the 18th century as they are often portrayed in pop culture and films than an actual portrayal of an American revolutionary soldier. I like the hairpiece, face and torso printing of this figure, and I believe both the minifig as well as the individual parts can be applied in many different scenarios.

    ps.
    It is a fact that those wigs often were teeming and festering with itchy and scratchy nasty blood sucking lice. So ironically those wig wearing aristocrats were both bald either because of a lack of hair follicles or they had someone shave their scalp, and were still suffering from nits too!

    pps.
    You are right, officers could for all I know also have fought with muskets next to their swords and whatever other arms they had at their disposal.
    On a painting from 1772 by Charles Wilson Paele, George Washington is even portrayed with one flung from his shoulder.

  • SumoLegoSumoLego New YorkMember Posts: 11,856
    Are we all dusting off our history degrees?  

    One could make an argument that it could be a Prussian soldier or British soldier from the era.  It's a stylized interpretation...

  • TheLoneTensorTheLoneTensor MericaMember Posts: 3,950
    edited June 2015
    The only contention seemed to be about wigs and firearms.  Good thing it wasn't about codpieces :)

    I'll agree with the fact that he could possibly represent different people in different scenarios, while still believing he represents a lieutenant in the continental army more so than he represents any other specific thing.
    SumoLego
  • TheBigLegoskiTheBigLegoski Amsterdam, NederlandMember Posts: 1,320
    I am glad to see you agree with the facts. :)
    Did you really need to shed light on where you already went in your minds eye!? Still, it could have been worse.
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 17,707
    ^^^^ to start another tangent, who says the Greek Goddess is Athena? It's a shame she didn't come with an owl.
  • SumoLegoSumoLego New YorkMember Posts: 11,856
    Although Athena is certainly not the only 'battle goddess', the spear and helmet are pretty good indicia.

    A microfigure Nike would have been another clever reference.
  • Vindic8edVindic8ed Member Posts: 163
    leetshoe said:
    The hardest part is the future. l mean does the alien come before the space marine or are they at the same time?
    For all we know the alien and the space marine existed before the cave man! ;)  Spore is a game that comes to mind when thinking about this (and the newest Star Trek movie).
  • SumoLegoSumoLego New YorkMember Posts: 11,856
    ^ a 'Prometheus' timeline...
  • TheBigLegoskiTheBigLegoski Amsterdam, NederlandMember Posts: 1,320
    edited June 2015
    @SumoLego

    Prometheus; that film left me with such contradictory feelings. I love that scifi universe and was really curious about the origins of the xenomorph aliens. The imagery of that picture is stunning, yet there were so many ludicrous plot holes and unconvincing two dimensional characters etcetera. It was pretty appalling how directors and poor script writing can screw everything up by delivering such a mediocre end result, when it has everything in it to be great.

    Similar to the latest Wachowskis flick: Jupiter Ascending. A story that has the potential to be as epic as the Game of Thrones TV series.

    B.t.w. all the sci fi CMF's are truly fantastic, which is also why they are beyond and above historical chronology.


    icey117hewman
  • TheLoneTensorTheLoneTensor MericaMember Posts: 3,950
    SumoLego said:
    Although Athena is certainly not the only 'battle goddess', the spear and helmet are pretty good indicia.
    Did someone say spear and magic helmet?


    SumoLegobobabricksdatsunrobbie560Heliport
  • SumoLegoSumoLego New YorkMember Posts: 11,856
    @SumoLego

    Prometheus; that film left me with such contradictory feelings. I love that scifi universe and was really curious about the origins of the xenomorph aliens. The imagery of that picture is stunning, yet there were so many ludicrous plot holes and unconvincing two dimensional characters etcetera. It was pretty appalling how directors and poor script writing can screw everything up by delivering such a mediocre end result, when it has everything in it to be great.

    Similar to the latest Wachowskis flick: Jupiter Ascending. A story that has the potential to be as epic as the Game of Thrones TV series.

    B.t.w. all the sci fi CMF's are truly fantastic, which is also why they are beyond and above historical chronology.


    I get distracted by the minutae - running around 5 minutes after having major internal surgery...

    I think they should have done less with the conspiracy angle, and more with the actual aliens.
  • SparkyHamSparkyHam Bristol, UKMember Posts: 133
    edited July 2015
    Wow! I didn't expect this thread to generate so much passionate conversation. 

    A couple of qualifications/guidelines my daughter and I are using to generate a time-line:
    • Sticking to actual factual & historical minifigs, so not worrying about 'future-type' figs @leetshoe ; or 'time of legends' figs 
    • Appreciating the "spanning" issue @CCC that is associated with the process of periodization, so allowing for some speculation and hypothetical contextulization to place them in time
    • Referring to the actual 'names' TLG has given each minifig on their website as a clue
    • Recognising that every historical minifig seems to have an actual weapon as an accessory (only just noticed this), meaning perhaps we should re-name this the "Historical Warriors Time-Line". Exceptions to the rule seem to be Abraham Lincoln (but he was a war-time leader), Julius Caesar (assuming it's Julius because of the "Veni, Vidi, Vici" text on his scroll, and William Shakespeare (arguably a fighter 'cus "the pen is mightier than the sword!")
    • Notable exception 1: The King and Knight seems to be fictional, particularly as there is a cluster of figs who can be categorised as "Fantasy Fiction" i.e. King, Knight, Wizard, Jester, Dwarf, Elf... akin to Tolkien fiction.
    • Notable exception 2: The Warrior Goddess and female warrior seem to be fictional too, as there is a group of figs who can be categorised as "mythical" i.e. Medusa, Mermaid, Genie, Minotaur... akin to Greek Mythology @Istokg ;
    My daughter and I are making this a little pre-summer project, and aiming to complete it as the local library - 'cus I want to teach her that there was life before internet and wikipedia!

    Looking forward to seeing your classroom display @dannyrww ;
    TheBigLegoskidannyrwwkhmellymelsandunecatwrangler
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 17,707
    edited July 2015
    You could always do another time line - fictional characters - ordering them by date of the book / film. You can then start adding in Sherlock (again contextualizing / assuming it is Sherlock Holmes), Red Riding Hood (again, assumption), Robin Hood (again, assumption) and so on.

    Sounds like fun, and quite appropriate if you are doing it in the library.
    khmellymelTheBigLegoskiSumoLego
Sign In or Register to comment.
Recent discussions Categories Privacy Policy