Slitherine

Shouldn't the well equiped archers be bow/swordsmen instead of bow?

Thanks,
Dannie

Could you explain why you think that may be the case?

I was under the impression, perhaps incorrectly, that the "better" archers in Timurid armies were equipped with shields, axes, and/or swords as well as bow. If so, it seems to me that bow/swordsmen would be a more accurate representation. I don't think that they should be bow/swordsmen in the Black or White Sheep Armies.

In fact, shouldn't the number of armored Cv that the Black and White Sheep armies can have be lower compared to the Timurid, and the number of tribal Cv/Lh greater?

Thanks,
Dannie

Worth remembering that possession of swords, etc. does not a "Swordsmen" make - in the same way that medieval crossbowmen who also had such are not "Swordsmen" as they did not act in a way to justify that classification.

Sorry if this is brief but I'm busy with eastern lists at the moment - just reading the forums as light relief ...

No problem, thanks Nik. What about the ratio of armored Cv versus tribal Cv/Lh in the Black and White Seep lists?

Dannie

I was disappointed that the Timurid Archers don't have swordsman capacity and that there were no cataphracts. There is a picture of a Timurid Cataphract in the Osprey book and with the lists from memory.

Not in a position to argue the history just thought it would be a nice differentiation of Timurid from other Mongoly type army lists!

Adrian

Leadman wrote:No problem, thanks Nik. What about the ratio of armored Cv versus tribal Cv/Lh in the Black and White Seep lists?

Dannie

Not sure there is any real reason why the Black and White Sheep chaps should have less Cv than Timur. Persian illustrations of te time show them to be pretty well equipped which is probably an indication of Cv types rather than LH. Also I don't think there is anythin to suggest that Timur's army was materially better equipped.

tamerlane wrote:I was disappointed that the Timurid Archers don't have swordsman capacity and that there were no cataphracts. There is a picture of a Timurid Cataphract in the Osprey book and with the lists from memory.

Not in a position to argue the history just thought it would be a nice differentiation of Timurid from other Mongoly type army lists!

Adrian

Please god - Osprey illustrations are not good evidence of army composition or troop performance

nikgaukroger wrote:

tamerlane wrote:I was disappointed that the Timurid Archers don't have swordsman capacity and that there were no cataphracts. There is a picture of a Timurid Cataphract in the Osprey book and with the lists from memory.

Not in a position to argue the history just thought it would be a nice differentiation of Timurid from other Mongoly type army lists!

Adrian

Please god - Osprey illustrations are not good evidence of army composition or troop performance

So why waste space and increase list cost by including them in the FoG lists instead of including additional lists or better historical notes? Especially without the historical notes on the basis for their reconstruction provided by Angus McBride and some of the other Osprey illustrators in the Men at Arms series, etc., the color illustrations are virtually useless.

You'd have to ask those who make such decisions that question.

Nik, I know that you are busy working on lists. Thanks for taking the time to reply .

Dannie

Wow I was a bit surprised by your oppinion of the osprey illustrations .I know the artist could take some liberty's but would not Osprey and the main author take a serious look at the illustrations and only those that they would agree with would go in the book? otherwise the books have limited value if the picture's are just fluff and dont really reflect what the real troops looked like .Now troop function from a picture is a alot of guess work but that is also not a bad question to ask someone who knows the muslim lists as you do . They seem to get every other troop type why not Knights (Just kidding ) god forbid a western army to have something interesting that isn't some muslim ally just joking Hope the listrs are going well !!![/b][/i]

pyrrhus wrote:Wow I was a bit surprised by your oppinion of the osprey illustrations .I know the artist could take some liberty's but would not Osprey and the main author take a serious look at the illustrations and only those that they would agree with would go in the book?

You really think Osprey would (or could) afford not to use already paid for artwork? I'm also less then certain the author gets to see the illustrations before it's to late for changes (if at all before publication).

It is also worth bearing in mind that some of the Ospreys are actually quite old now and research has changed the percetion of a significant number of Ancient armies in the last 20 years or so.

The other factor is that armoured troops are "sexier" and hence modern illustrators tend to disproportionately depict the very best equipped men.

So do the list authors get any say about what illustrations are used in the list volumes or a chance to review them before the lists are published?

At least in the better of the Osprey books that contain the paintings, the artist usually provides notes on the basis for their reconstruction that might well indicate that the painting shows an individual with better than average equipment, or provide information to allow the reader to research the source more fully. Even in books like Nick Sekunda's Men At Arms volumeon the Achaemenid Persians where I haven't thought highly of the paintings the notes have still been useful and informative, and sometimes are often the most interesting part of the book.

batesmotel wrote:At least in the better of the Osprey books that contain the paintings, the artist usually provides notes on the basis for their reconstruction that might well indicate that the painting shows an individual with better than average equipment, or provide information to allow the reader to research the source more fully. Even in books like Nick Sekunda's Men At Arms volumeon the Achaemenid Persians where I haven't thought highly of the paintings the notes have still been useful and informative, and sometimes are often the most interesting part of the book.

My estimate of the relative usefulness of the components of a typical Osprey book, from most to least valuable:—
1. The bibliography.
2. The B&W illustrations accompanying the main text that show contemporary depictions of troops or archaeological discoveries of original equipment.
3. The notes on the colour plates.
4. The colour plates.
5. The main text.

Best wishes,
Matthew

hammy wrote:It is also worth bearing in mind that some of the Ospreys are actually quite old now and research has changed the percetion of a significant number of Ancient armies in the last 20 years or so.

One of the Roman books Osprey is still selling looks identical to an Osprey book I bought used at a swapmeet circa 1972

I first noted this when some of the illustrations from that book were used in Legion Arena

Watch it boys osprey has eyes and ears every where (haha). I agree some info is dated but the books hold up well in the content department they are well researched and well written . Most of the authors are "experts " not wargaming experts mind but experts non the less in their fields . If we didn't have them the historical wargames world would suffer greatly (cant stand those old line drawings anymore ) ps ask david about the print in his book on tamerlane maybe he has some more info on it .and i agree osprey is a bit like porn for historians . Haha

The problem you run into is that Osprey will reprint old info in a new format, even if the info has been proven wrong. Its a reprint of a book, not an update.

I like that 'order of usefulness' list and tend to agree. Osprey books, on their own, are not enough to be considered historically 'accurate'. Sometimes, they are little more than the authors opinion when no one really knows for sure, which is REALLY frustrating from a reenactment standpoint. Even worse is when someone uses the "well, I read it in an osprey book" when they make something that we know is not right.