"Researching an Ancients Army" Topic

When you collect a new Ancients army, do you also research the history and culture of that nation?

True.

Both. My personal opinion that for majority of wargamers researching means just looking at Osprey pictures. About 2/3 of wargamers do not know anything else. My own opinion based on talking history with others and following conversation here, on TMP.

Depends. Not generally as the ones that I game or plan to game I generally know some history and culture of.

I glance at a Wikipedia article and consider it done…

It's all fantasy gaming sans magic to me.

True, but as Sundance has said, I generally get interested in building a miniature army after reading about the history, rather than the reverse.

Doug

It's the other way around for me, with my rare forays into historical armies- I tend to collect armies of cultures that I've had a long-running pre-existing fascination with- Hittites being the current consideration for collection, since I've been fascinated by them since my teens.

So, I guess a sort of bass-ackwards "True?"

- Monk

Used to but after years of research I am convinced that whatever we do in gaming is all fantasy. Now I still research history for general interest but no longer for a gaming army, that I take as the current opinion in gaming circles and don't argue about historic accuracy of my or my opponents forces.

x42

True.

I wouldn't put the proportion of 'Osprey mainly' quite as high as Igwarg1. However, Ospreys are a good source of information and inspiration if used wisely.

Staging and painting an ancients army relies on a good understanding of the culture and aesthetics – so tends to involve a bit more cultural absorption than the more 'off the shelf' approach common in later eras*

Phil

*hence those TMP 'non-'threads where a new enthusiast posts in asking what colour this or that was (expecting a simple helpful answer) and usually gets either nothing a lot of waffle: well that's how it is (it just isn't as simple as 'what colour should I paint Imitation Legionary shields' …) …

True

I research the military history aspects and the army composition and fighting styles, also a less in-depth look at the political realities but I wouldn't say I research the culture beyond the military culture.

The two go hand in hand.

Although not strictly "ancients", I found cultural/historical research most useful while building up warbands for an upcoming Pigs Wars game. Not only for clothing colors, but for ideas on scenarios and development patterns amongst different groups- Saxons, Vikings, Irish, Monasteries, etc.- which leads back to more scenario ideas.

Noting some of the comments above hinting at "who needs background info?", take a look at the new Warning Order #32, which has an editorial about the decline of historical interest/knowledge in "historical" gaming.

I would only collect an Ancients army that I had at least a passing interest in. Then I tend to plan what I want from the army in terms of rough size and mix of units- before I buy I will start researching.

Start with wikipedia- might be flawed but it is free and good starting point. Often will have links to books or websites that go into more detail. I will often then google several topics- e.g to check what weapons, armour, shield & helmets were appropriate to that era. Tend to do a search both on TMP and Roman Army Talk.com.

Then having gone through the freely available resources I will be able to tailor my reading of either PDF's, Kindle or hard copy books.

Cheers

James

I research the history of any ancient army I put on a table, the cultural aspect usually comes later.

Yes, which is why I,m constantly buying new bookcases. I,m running out of wall space.

I like historical figures… (the editorial points towards powergaming as the death of historical research being first and foremost). They're a joy to paint and put on the table.

What's terrible at times is that if you express an interest in historical figures people assume you have an equal interest in military history. It's just not there.

Yep, so much so I did my dissertation on the Selucids after 4 years of owning the army. (an army which I am continuing to paint 3 years since my dissertation!)

No. But when I research a new ancient culture, I start colleting minis that represent their militaries.

I will get at least 2 books of history of any army that I am going to paint. The problem is that by studying that army you then also study their opponent and now I have to paint 2 armies.

The last ancients I bought were HaT's Hittites. I had read the archaeology of the H. I also bought HaT's Qin Chinese.
I have seen their statues from Chin Shih Huang Ti'S tomb in three different museum exhibits and have studied the period.

Yes, but mainly military aspects though (ie much like Leidang).

I always proceed from historical interest to army selection.

I often use the painting of an army as an opportunity to educate myself about the people and society it represents.

Not really. I tend to collect ancient armies after having read about them. There's a domino effect: you get Carthaginians and Romans to start off, then expand your Spanish, Numidians and Gauls. You also need Macedonians for a bit later on; and another pike army for Successor battles. Then you need Persians to fight your Macedonians, which naturally leads to hoplite Greeks, and if you have one Greek army it goes without saying that you need another for it to fight. Then there's a Marian army for Caesar, and another for Pompey; and more Gauls of course, and perhaps Numidians too. Then you need to pick up a few extra units – Samnites so you can do Sentium and so on and so forth. From there it's a short step to Parthians and so on it goes!

Cheers,
Aaron

Yes, I research the history and culture for a new ancients army. I may be one of IGWARG1's minority – I don't use Osprey books. I think I own one, maybe two. I have a lot of other history books, and acquire more as I need them.

Ehh, oui !

always.

in fact, i usually start by reading, and then decide to do the army because the books interested me

I try to. I've discovered finding accessible info beyond more-or-less scanty WP entries on many armies is challenging.

That said, a good proportion of my history books are bought in direct connection with past, present or future wargaming projects.

Ancient armies are no different to any of my other ones, first the period, then the figures, then think about some rules….

I generally get into armies two ways. Either I come across a range of figures that make me go 'wow' – those are pretty. Then I inevitably end up buying way too many books, discover that the army lists or figures have 'flaky' bits.. correct them on my figures, get laughed at by people who have read a couple of Ospreys etc… or I have read, or start reading, and find something fascinating, then collect a few figs, and this inevitably grows. So far, I blame Connolly, Nicolle, Greatrex, Dodgeon, Lieu and finally Colleen McCullough (her 'First man in Rome' series was a wonderfully researched and evocative masterpiece.

Ancient armies are no different to any of my other ones, first the period, then the figures, then think about some rules….

You are much more disciplined than me Martin! I tend to be "Ooo nice shiny figures – I'll have some of those!" Then start looking at the history. In fact I blame the late, great Peter Gilder for getting me into Byzantines. Back in the 70's he sculpted some early Byzantines for Hinchliffe based on the drawings in "Armies and Enemies of Imperial Rome". I fell in love with figures and bought an army. Many years, piles of books and articles later I know a lot more about them. Or to be more accurate know a bit about them plus a lot of different opinions, speculations and conflicting evidence to mull over.
I still have my old Hinchliffe Byzantines – plus a few other versions collected over the years.

All my armies are concentrated in the period 225-190BC, so I have a reasonable background knowledge of new armies I start (plus usually a number of figures that can be used in the army as mercenaries/allies etc). I review my knowledge of the military and to some extent political history of the army but tend to leave the cultural side of things alone, except where it impinges on the military.

Fred, I remember looking at those Hinchcliffe Byzantines, and they were wonderful. I regret now not getting them.

And I did the same with Sasanians.. who some uneducated people still call Sassanids… ;-)

In my case it was the late 90's and the AB Sasanians, as well as the Purple Primer from Airfix Guides. I always wanted them, it was just that none of the figures captured my imagination till I saw the AB sculpts.

….. who some uneducated people still call Sassanids

I thought the -id suffix corresponded to the kings and their dynasties, to complement Fatimids, and Abbasids.

It's like the term "Khusrau". I'd say the myriad of spellings of that term points more to the illiteracy of ancient times and the profusion of regional dialects, than the lack of education levels of modern readers.

No one seems willing to admit to "Well I mini-maxed the army lists"

Why is that gentle reader?

I check to see if I can Min-max the army list…
oops…

The only prepurchase research I've ever done, is before I bought my Mycenaean army.
I swear every other army I've bought started as an impulse buy!