Talk:Equestrian statue

subject

• Equestrian - wikipedia is not a dictionary. and i cannot see any way this article could be anything more than a word definition. Kingturtle 16:57, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • Um. I stubified it. Keep. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick
  • Keep. Evil saltine 00:42, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • Keep. What links here says why. I've added the more common meaning for horse riding events and linked to overview section in Horse and some sub-topics which have pages. Mentioned that the sculpture portion is a stub for Equestrian (sculpture) and could be moved there if enough material accumulates. JamesDay 00:48, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's just the adjective. If it were "equestrian something-or-other I might feel differently. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 00:52, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • It's a class of sculpture. The horse bit now refers people to equestrianism.
  • Keep. Wartortle 21:36, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • Keep. -- Jake 14:26, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

A photo of a "standard" military general on horseback might fit the article better than King/Saint Louis. --Kbh3rd 05:09, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Convention?

I'm under the impression that the position of the horse's front hooves indicate how the rider died (both up means "died in battle," etc.). That information may be useful, if there's anyone who knows for sure. Brian Sayrs 01:54, 2004 Dec 25 (UTC)

The convention is that if the horse is rampant, the rider died in battle. If the horse has one front leg up, the rider was wounded in battle or died of wounds sustained in battle, and if all four hooves are on the ground, the rider died of causes other than combat. However, snopes.com notes that of at least 30 equestrian statues in Washington DC, only 10 follow that convention. --Unfocused 00:19, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

A highly entertaining, but naive view of iconography, without any foundation in actual practice. --Wetman 02:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I second that emotion. I surveyed a lot of equestrian works with this urban myth in mind and the correlation was very low. Carptrash 02:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, also doesn't apply to Custer's statue in Monroe, MI (all four feet are on the ground). Windsor (talk) 12:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I hope nobody minds, but I added the information concerning this to the article, quoting Unfocused's post. 80.229.173.125 15:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The Popular belief section only talks about the United States but doesn't mention its only talking about the United States. The section should be neutralised to be about the whole world. The belief probably came from Europe anyway. Besides, the belief can be easily disproved as there are equestrian statues of living people who clearly haven't died at all. Can somebody please fix up the section? McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 01:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Someone removed the below edit of the popular belief section. Despite what the "holy grail" of snopes says, the custom stated this way is nearly always true even applied to all of the statues cited by snopes in dispute of the erroneous phrasing of the custom. The earliest mention of the custom as stated below that I have ever found in print dates from 1885 from the Times Picayune.

The custom is sometimes restated to apply more broadly as; both front legs in the air, the rider served his country in some way on a horse and died in service to his country. If the horse has one front leg up, the rider served his country in some way on a horse and was wounded in service to his country, and if all four hooves are on the ground, the rider simply served his country in some way on a horse. The custom is not to be construed as requiring sculpural depictions to reflect conditions of service to country. But it does require that sculptural depictions not exaggerate conditions of service. For example if a person did not die in service of his country but was wounded in service of his country he should not be depicted on a rampant horse but on a horse with one hoof raised. A consideration in this matter is that a rampant horse sculpture is more expensive than a four on the ground sculpture. Thus considered a person who did serve his country on a horse and did die in service of his country can be acceptably honored with a sculpture with four on the ground even though he can also be honored on a rampant horse. It is not customarily acceptable for a person who did not die in service to his country to be depicted on a rampant horse. An example of this was a controversey that arose in the iconic New Orleans sculptural depiction of Andrew Jackson on a rampant horse in Jackson Square. Andrew Jackson did not die "in service of his country". He died an old man in his bed. Since the statue was already paid for and built when the controversey arose the objection was disposed of by pointing out that Jackson was a former president and as former presidents are afforded the honorary title of "Mr President" they are also considered forever after to be "in service of their country". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.164.95.126 (talk) 00:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

"One such statue was erected in 1998 in Gettysburg National Military Park, and is of James Longstreet, who is featured on his horse with one foot raised, even though Longstreet was not wounded in battle." Wrong. Longstreet was severely wounded during a Confederate assault at the Battle of the Wilderness, May 6, 1864. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fwild3 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure there is plenty of documentation; letters, articles, contracts, etc., written by sculptors of the past. Do any of them ever say anything about this custom? There are sculptors living and working now, still creating equestrian works. Do any of them back up this claim? I would be very surprised if the answer turns out to be yes. What would be the purpose of doing that? Artists, especially those dealing with and getting paid the kind of money it takes to make something like this, are concerned with creating a work that will inspire some sort of intended reaction in those who encounter it, not in perpetuating some "tradition" that is so obscure that people have to debate whether or not it even exists. If a sculptor comes up with a great concept for an equestrian sculpture that really conveys the greatness of the person depicted on the horse do you really think they would stop and say to themselves "Oh wait! I can't do it like that! He was wounded in battle! I have to do it this other way!" If you really think that I suggest you get to know some actual artists. Personally, I see no reason to think this is an actual thing. Beetfarm Louie (talk) 22:07, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I found this. "I second that emotion. I surveyed a lot of equestrian works with this urban myth in mind and the correlation was very low. Carptrash 02:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)" Carptrash (talk) 01:18, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

"Equestrian" in English usage

In English an equestrian is a mounted rider. Otherwise equestrian is only an adjective: An "equestrian statue", an "equestrian bronze", an "equestrian monument", an "equestrian sculpture of bronze" etc. An "equestrian Marcus Aurelius" is right; an "equestrian of Marcus Aurelius" as formerly in this article, is wrong. It's worth knowing, especially in the context of this article.--Wetman 02:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

thanks dude - - an' "right on." Meanwhile this article has become a real tar baby for me. But one day soon I'm gonna bust the United States section wide open. Carptrash 02:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, should we perhaps REMOVE the word "equestrian" from a lot [or all] the works mentioned since they all are, by definition, "equestrian" works? Carptrash 19:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Texans will claim

to have the biggest of everything, but that don't make it so.

I cut this sentence out;

The Mustangs of Las Colinas, in Irving, Texas claims to be the world's largest equestrian sculpture.

because according to the way equestrian sculpture is defined here, there is a rider needed and this Texas work does not have one. I will come up with a statue more challenging to this definition shortly. Carptrash 16:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of the equestrian sculpture made in Kolozsvar, Kingdom of Hungary in 1373? It was made by the Márton and Györg Kolozsvár for Prague castle and predates the suppposed first of the renaissance. RobynRadway 16:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps there is no mewntion of it because you have not added it to the article? Wikipedia works best when you do things your self, rather then pointing out things for other folks to do. Carptrash 23:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Citations

There is not a single citation on this page. While I believe the stuff under the heading "Popular belief", it would be nice to have an actual source. Shinigami27 23:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Propose move to Equestrian statue

- surely the usual term (172K ghits vs 15K)? Any objections? Johnbod (talk) 13:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

As no one has edited the page for 6 months, and more of the incoming links use statue, I have gone ahead. Johnbod (talk) 14:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Da Vinci

Was it da vinci that first made an equestrian statue with two legs in the air? I remember reading it in a book... but I want to be sure. 120.28.64.72 (talk) 15:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure that this equestrian was ever built. Maybe he did others? Carptrash (talk) 14:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

the gallery

I am basically in favor of large amounts of pictures in articles such as this one, but I feel that they can and SHOULD offer more than just an image. I'd like to propose that pictures used in this article re required to include not just where the statue is and who it represents but also should list the date and sculptor of the work. This would mean that each picture actually contributed some facts to the article beyond just existence. Also, the whole thing needs to be arranged better. But first, please get back to me on the above proposal or I will take the slash and burn approach. Carptrash (talk) 13:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Bronzes from Pergola

It seems that this article missed the Gilt Bronzes from Cartoceto di Pergola, a roman group with two equestrian statues. Please add them. --Accurimbono (talk) 22:23, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Another on in Ohio

Please include the equestrian statue of Civil War General Philip Sheridan (1831-1888) which is located at Main & Columbus Streets in Somerset, Perry County, Ohio. Musicwriter (talk) 15:59, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Kiasma ad Helsinki.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:13, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Proportions

Something that I think might deserve some discussion is the fact that the throughout his5tory of equestrian art, in both painting and sculpture, the horse has almost always been depicted as proportionally much smaller than a real horse would be relative to a rider. One could argue that that's only natural since the rider is generally the subject of the sculpture rather than the horse, which is merely a kind of setting. However it just seems strange to me that this convention would persist in virtually all cultures throughout all history of portraying a rider on a horse, and the proportions are all very similar. Has anyone ever studied this phenomenon or offered an explanation? Do artists have an accepted standard for how big the horse should be relative to the rider? Beetfarm Louie (talk) 10:24, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I think this is very often true, but you'd need a reference. It's much less true for eg the Equestrian statue of Gattamelata, but ridiculously the case for the US Civil War general in the article. ESs actually appear in rather a narrow range of periods and cultures globally. Johnbod (talk) 13:03, 6 August 2024 (UTC)