"Conflicting sources: how do you decide?" Topic

You are researching the 3rd Valgorian Zaegers ze Pferd.
Vurklemeyer's magisterial "Uniformen und Tchochkes oof der Krieg des Pfumphen Kaisern" and they have the usual Lilac Green coats with raspberry facings, but no turnbacks and the bicorne shako.
Then you find a Schlumpffen cigarette card from the year after the war, which shows that famous regiment with black coat! All the rest of the uniform is the same.

Both Vurklemeyer and Schlumpffen are renowned for their accuracy.
How do you decide which to follow in painting your usual 48 figure regiments?

Abandon the period and give away all your figures. What else could you possibly do?

I had conflicting examples when researching the 76PA Zouave uniform. Saw examples of fez without yellow band around the bottom, then saw painting done by well known artist with yellow band. Really annoyed me that I could not nail down just the simple headgear that they wore. More research I did more conflicting info I found. I finally decided I liked the look in the painting, so decided to go with that. So just came down to a matter of "taste".

It is problems like this which put me off painting any WSS figures for thirty years.

My solution was to do it in 2mm so no-one could tell if the uniforms were the right colour or not:)

Otherwise I would either find a third source or just pick the colour which looked best.

I did this once with the Flag of the First Minnesota. I painted the Flag according to source I found in the Historical archives that dealt with all the Minnesota regiments in the Civil War.

According to the Historical expert at Fort Snelling, the Flag was painted wrong. I told him that I used the reference book found in the Historical archives, that gave a detailed description of the flag. He said that he was one of the presentation flags given to the regiment by someone in New Ulm, Mn. But, the discussion about New Ulm in the book was after the description of the flag.

I stayed with what I read, but would not make an argument of it.

Use primary sources, you lazy bustards.

All the best,

John.

Primary and well respected sources are the best way to go

When in doubt, pick what looks most cool

Well John with both being know for their accuracy (although one is likely VERY wrong) this means you have to decide.

So in that situation I would either go with the one I liked better, or perhaps the better "known" uniform so it is more easiliy identified on the table.

Of course there is the option that they were both correct for different times, then you might just have to go all Larry Leadhead and but enough to paint them in both uniforms.

Personally I have always found Vurklemeyer to be stuffy and pompus, so I would look for the contemporay Schlumpffen cigarette card. I mean if you can't trust a smoker then who can you trust when it comes to the 3rd Valgorian Zaegers ze Pferd.

Ouija Board

we sure could use a time machine.

There is always the Coin Flip of Decision!

Make them all brown, grey, and more brown. A day of march would make them that color no matter what they started out as.

Go with the coolest uniform.

Do the one that looks nicer.

When in doubt, pick the look that I can best paint.

Split the difference – lilac green with black zebra stripes.

Doug

As 79thPA.

My solution was to do it in 2mm so no-one could tell if the uniforms were the right colour or not:)

I swear if you got the button color wrong on those guys you will hear if from me!

Another vote for the coolest one…who really gives a s/h/*/t what your painted troops look like if they are reasonably close, especially when there is debate over thinmgs like that.

I try to be as accurate as I can. But if the 'experts' can't agree then I do as I wish. Usually along the lines of picking one of the alternatives presented.
My attitude is that if the 'experts' can't be bothered to get it right, it's not my fault.

I look for a third source as the tie breaker. Absent that, I like the Ouija board or coin flip suggestions.

I always go with the most colourful/different-from-the-rest-of-the-hundreds-of-figures option.

I see three options from the above.

1. Paint both uniforms for the regiment.
2. Pick the one that looks best.
3. Get to the primary or third reliable source.

VR
James Mattes

Use the source closest in writing to the subject matter. For instance, if you were researching something of the Punic Wars and you were using Livy and Polybius but came across a conflict, you would use Polybius since he was alive during the 2nd and 3rd Punic Wars and knows the subject from first hand accounts.

Contact Matthew Lesko-surely theres some "free" government money to study this question more in depth.

Barring a willingness to further assess the source reliability, more research looking for additional sources to resolve the conflict would be needed; but it might cut into milk-and-cookies hour. Obsessive types that grapple with contradiction should be kept away from sharp objects, paints and keyboards.

Who knows who cares paint em both. It's only a game.

That's why I like WSS, there are very few people that can tell if some uniforms are incorrect, unlike some other periods where you run the risk of having somebody go into a fit and scream to your fact that you used the wrong colour.

Early war or late war uniform?

Play ImagiNations – that way, YOU are the primary source material, and cannot be faulted!

If dealing with historicals, and there are conflicting sources of equally credible reliability &c., it comes down to your choice, anyway.

Obviously the black uniforms were for dress parade. The green ones were for the field. Both are correct.

Buttons were generally brass for the officers and wooden for the enlisteds.

Boots black. Hat feathers white with a red tip.

Historical wargaming has the same dilemmas as the history it is based on – you have to make the best (most historically convincing) judgement you can based on the best evidence you can glean. Sometimes it that judgement will change when more or better evidence shows up (in which case you go back and make corrections and revisions) … that's what keeps history and wargaming alive and dynamic.

Phil

Paint up both and have them fight it out on the tabletop to see who gets to go into battle. Kind of a wargames cage match.

Thank God you aren't a re-enactor. You'd have a whole lot more time and money invested in your hobby, and a whole lot more abuse when it turned out that the version you chose was clearly, absolutely wrong.

Demand photographic evidence. In color. With audio recordings of the participants discussing the appearance. When someone says, "We can't do that— they didn't have cameras or tape recorders back then!", reply "Then you *don't* actually know what they looked like, do you?" And paint 'em whatever way suits you.

When I had Eureka do evzones for me, I found pictures of them in white fustanella (kilt) and embroidered jacket and other pictures showing them in a long blue coat. I thought it through, decided they were wearing the coat over the jacket and fustanella. Thinking about it and looking over the pictures again, I realized the blue coat was probably what they wore in the field, and went with that.

Grelber

In that case, I always choose the one that looks best in the tabletop.

"Thank God you aren't a re-enactor."

A good reason to be part of a group so you can be uniformly wrong together. The same wrong uniform on a number of people looks much better than a hodgepodge of various 'right' ones.

I'm always tempted to go with the one that looks or sounds more aesthetically pleasing, as long as there is a source available.

The thing that really annoys me though is when I think I have finally found two corroborating sources, written years apart and settling all queries, only to realise that the latter is using the former as a resource.

Whether it's uniforms, tactics or combat results, so long as the end result is historically justifiable (and in the absence of evidence, doesn't violate common sense) then I go with whatever looks best/gives the best game.

Thank God you aren't a re-enactor. You'd have a whole lot more time and money invested in your hobby, and a whole lot more abuse when it turned out that the version you chose was clearly, absolutely wrong.

I haven't really seen a reenactor who had got it clearly and absolutely wrong, nor have I seen one being 'abused' over historical authenticity. As a wargame presenter, the nearest I have come to 'abuse' was an incident at Colours many years ago presenting my Siege of Jerusalem game where one run of the game was destroyed by a continual 'how do you know that?' critic.

I thought I had picked up a comedian initially but when I implied this I was put straight – he wanted to dispute the conventional interpretation of the standard sources for the First Crusade, and all of the common mechanisms used in wargames. Every time I tried to allow the other participants to play he would interrupt and dispute the assumptions of the game.

Whilst I was fully equipped to answer such questions, it would have been unfair to turn the game into a one-man ego trip – even so, we lost players and, in the end, had to abandon the game.

Most people did come back later, and were able to enjoy what was (I believe) a plausible miniature exploration of some of the episodes of historical event.

Thankfully such experiences are rare (that's the worst in over 20 years of sticking my neck out ).

Generally people understand that any presentation, life-size or miniature, involves doing your legitimate best rather than always being exactly right (and that if there is 'debatable' content, that there is a time and a place to debate it …) …

Phil

The secret to getting it right as a re-enactor is to pick an early period before there were standard uniforms – that said I've been accused of taking things way too far in terms of getting my own replica costumes right as I've shared work benches in various museum conservation labs with some of the world's leading early medieval textile experts and now make replica costumes for museums and academics around the globe.

As such my replica costumes started with genetic studies of the fleece from archaeological samples of fabric so as to work with the right rare breed farmers to blend fleeces to get something suitable for spinning replica yarn to weave replica cloth, most of the period dye stuffs I've used we've grown… and as for the statistical studies I've done on period stitch types and sizes when seaming costume… well I'm just a sad no hoper.

Best policy I've found is to assume everything is likely to be wrong to some extent as there will never be enough information to conclusively draw a fully reliable opinion, it both motivates you to do more research, and makes you more tolerant and accepting of things which may not be perfect.

Thank God you aren't a re-enactor. You'd have a whole lot more time and money invested in your hobby, and a whole lot more abuse when it turned out that the version you chose was clearly, absolutely wrong.

Thatis one of the reasons my wife and I do steampunk together. As a reenactor I'm still a hardcore campaigner – of a buttonpissing stitch nazi if you prefer.

I haven't really seen a reenactor who had got it clearly and absolutely wrong,

Really? I could flood this thread with photos of bad reenactors. And I say that as a reenactor myself…

Some folks put a lot of time, effort, and research into reenacting – and some are absolutely awful train wrecks.