How do you paint your armies?

[Sanzo84]

Do you strive for historical accuracy, ie. you actually copy the coat of arms of Lord such and such and his bannermen from an Osprey or other historical resource book? Semi-historical, ie. Fleurs-de-Lys on all French knights and the Three Lions or the Cross of St. George on all English knights? Or whatever looks right, as long as the miniatures are correct for the era, army list?

I'm new myself to historical miniature wargaming and don't really know which approach I should take. I might strive for a Total War like scheme for uniformity and simplicity's sake with variations for the different Battle Groups. It might be obvious that I'm thinking of starting a late medieval army.

[Montagu]

It's totally a personal choice. Most players wont care how you paint them or the quality of the paint job either.

In my opinion, it's a game. Your money is as good as mine and if you don't like it, I'll find someone else to play against.

Monty

[Brainsnaffler]

I try wherever possible to be historically accurate, but it's quite hard sometimes to be so accurate, after all, an Osprey plate will only give you one example of a troop type and not a representation of a Battle Group.

As I am creating ancients, I like to make the groups a bit dusty and not overly colourful. I have been painting some African Spearmen for my Punic army, but for shield details, there's only one reference in Men at Arms 121 that says they have white shields. This doesn't state whether they have patterns or guilding around the shield, only that they are white, so I have ultimately had to improvise from other people's example models I have found on the web.

For my spanish, I will be trying to make patterns out of natural colours or finding a way to dull the brightness of the shields down for a more authentic effect.

[shakespear]

I use:

http://www.paintedarmies.com/

and he does good historical detail work

[miffedofreading]

I go for hollywood accuracy....

i.e. something that looks good or is easy.

If it looks attractive and seems right for the period then it will do nicely.

e.g. Do I know whether Spartans actually wore red cloaks? I think they did but couldn't care less if they didn't. I would still paint Spartans with red cloaks because it si what looks right

Andy

[RyanDG]

Depends on the era and the army really. I do strive for a historical look, but I am willing to make certain leeways based on what I feel will look good in the end (which means a certain degree of uniformity to even the most non-uniformed armies - whether it be through the use of a common color on various articles of clothing or some other touch). Most of my armies are 'inspired' by a specific commander or battle which means that when they are completed I tend to try to personalize them to that commander or battle as much as possible (or as much as is known through historical records).

[CoyotePBEM2]

Another vote for personal preference. If you enjoy researching the details, go for it. Otherwise, I see no problem with someone making up details "in the theme"

Regarding Carthagian African Spearmen: I don't there was a congress or memo for painting the shields white. Our details are probably based on a few contemporary sources describing the shields simply as "white" (I'm not an expert in the field, just speaking generally)

This could range from: Always white all the time, most of the unit armed with white shields, the shields being mostly white.

If you look at the unit from a distance and could reasonably call the shields white, you are good.

In the specific example of late medieval, you should at least be able to look at the miniatures and reasonably say that they have a coat of arms that could have been seen at the time. That's the minimum, the maximum is up to you.

[Probert]

I try to be as accurate as possible. But, with ancients at some point you have to just paint what feels right, because we don't really know what colors were used on most types of troops (Romans being the exception).

I started FOG with a Carthagian Army and so far I have painted:

Spanish Cavalry - whitish clothing with crimson piping and drab green cloaks. Shield designs were black, yellow and red in very simple block patterns.

Numidian Cavalry - sand colored clothing with white shields and a simple palm tree designs on the shield.

Veteran African Spearmen - these models look a lot like Romans. I painted their clothing a dull ochre orange and have not decided on what to paint the shields yet.

[lawrenceg]

Do you strive for historical accuracy, ie. you actually copy the coat of arms of Lord such and such and his bannermen from an Osprey or other historical resource book? Semi-historical, ie. Fleurs-de-Lys on all French knights and the Three Lions or the Cross of St. George on all English knights? Or whatever looks right, as long as the miniatures are correct for the era, army list?

I'm new myself to historical miniature wargaming and don't really know which approach I should take. I might strive for a Total War like scheme for uniformity and simplicity's sake with variations for the different Battle Groups. It might be obvious that I'm thinking of starting a late medieval army.

As in most cases the coat of arms was an individual identifier, in general you should not take a "uniform" approach, except for special cases such as military orders who did have uniforms.
Ideally, one should strive for historical accuracy, but it is not always easy to find specific coats of arms in enough numbers for all your figures and it is not always easy to paint them as they can be quite complicated. I generally stick to simple geometric heraldic devices such as crosses or stripes, enough to give a general impression of a colourful and varied array. If you are good at painting and have the time to research them, then use real coats of arms.

[GKChesterton1976]

Slowly! Very slowly!