"Is it right to be wrong?" Topic

Here's another one of those open ended theoretical questions I like to pose.

We're probably all aware of a few gamers who are obsessed with historical accuracy, folk who will pick fault with the most beautifully sculpted and painted miniature simply because there's one button too few on jacket, or a cap being worn at the wrong angle. In general I think most would suggest that it's generally a good thing to try make miniatures as historically accurate as you can, however I wondered about exactly how folk define accurate? Later periods of history tend to be easier to study because of an abundance of information but this doesn't stop contradictory sources of evidence being found, and anything that has to be researched through archaeology tends to be a bit more vague, with theories changing with each new piece of evidence unearthed leading to many popular misconceptions to be overthrown.

In an ideal world we'd all want a perfect understanding of our subject, and we'd want all our historical miniatures to reflect that level of understanding. However, in practice, most gamer's understanding of their subject comes from the figures they buy, from what they see other gamers are buying, and perhaps from a few popularist illustrated titles from publishers like Osprey.

So if the latest thinking from leading academics and historians contradicts popular opinion and the references we do have access to, and much of what we consider to be "true" turns out to be nothing more than misconception, would you actually want to buy "accurate" miniatures to correct this, or would you still want something that fitted in with all the other manufacturers "wrong" products you already have. What's more if such "accurate" products were available what would it take to persuade you they were genuinely accurate and that it was the rest of the gaming world that was wrong?

I could find "errors" in perhaps 50% of what I have painted in the past.
Things like my 23rd Welch fusiliers being Hinchliffe grenadierswith the wings carved away to represent fusiliers. AND using them regularly at Guilford Courthouse, ny favorite battle!
Let's not even mention the fact that I have yet to paint the 2nd Battalion of Guards, but keep using the 63rd Foot (who have yet to do battle as the 63rd Foot…)
My 1st Guards carry colours!
My Highlanders wear kilts.
My continental Light Dragoons wear the same coat, no matter the year!
I have units flying the Betsy Ross flag, the Bennington flag, the Guilford Courthouse flag…

All of my "errors" are based on what I knew at the time, poverty and the unwillingness to deprive proud units of their well earned and deserved distinctions.

Here is my musical answer. Hit it, Luther!
YouTube link

The standard answer to "that gamer" should always be "Hey, thanks! Do you have that unit painted correctly? Can you bring it over here to my game, and play with it?"

Remember the fundamental principle of democracy:
If a majority of them is wrong, then they are right.

Democracy is two foxes and a chicken voting on what to have for dinner.

I paid for the bloody army, so if I want to have a certain "look", then that's how they will look.

I have neither the time, nor finances, nor inclination to repaint/rebuild/etc new armies as new information comes out. I do the best I can with what's available, based upon my reading and interpretation of period sources.

Thus, I have no problem with using Republican Romans as Auxilia for an Imperial Roman army, though eventually I'll probably try and get the correct minis.

I also have no problem with using Spartans from the "300" series style as historical Spartans, simply because i like the way they look.

Basically, if someone doesn't like it, they are free to paint their own minis and use them in someone else's game.

I long ago began to take the emphasis off the "war" in wargame, and put it, instead, upon the "game" portion of the word.

My get out of jail card with ancients is "wow, were you there?"

I've been interested in the ECW for 30+ years and in that time have modified and adapted my armies to try to reflect some of the more recent research. Some of the collection is still probably wrong but at the end of the day it meets my needs and approval and I still enjoy playing it with. I've come close to replacing it with more modern figures but each time I go back to those I've converted as they are old friends.

I actually think it would be extremely difficult to ever present any wargame and say with total conviction that the scene our game depicts is historically accurate. I think you have to reach a point where enough is enough and move on.

Perhaps it's also a sobering thought to consider something like this: is is really worth worrying about the lace being wrong on the jacket when:
a) it's too small to really see once the game is underway
b) my terrain doesn't look very real or
c) my figures have got bananas for hands and tree trunks for muskets

Where exactly do you draw the line when defining realism, surely it must go beyond the figures themselves?

I care to a degree and where possible I try to be as "historical" as current knowledge allows. However, I am also a great believer in wargamer's artistic licence.

Raglan

1. If building an army for a period I've never done anything with before, I'd want to buy figures reflecting the latest scholarship.
2. If I already had an army, I would not replace it with figures reflecting the latest scholarship, though I might add some new units.
3. I have not bothered to repaint the rims of my Vikings' shields, which should probably be leather, rather than metal, as I've painted them. Just too many figures. In fact, I'm still painting new Vikings with metal rimmed shields.
4. I suppose the importance I accord to the change in perceived truth would influence me, though. If an actual Viking era drawing of a Skraeling ballista were discovered which differed significantly from what I have, I might have to make one (1).
5. This is a "Shooting at a moving target" sort of question, though in this particular case, historical wisdom tends to change from time to time, and in 20 years, my preferred interpretation might come back into style, making me a leader in historical interpretation, the only guy in our club with an historically accurate army.
6. Sometimes, and to some degree, our stereotypes, myths, and legendary concepts trump history, though they are demonstrably wrong. I do have a Viking leader with Winged helm--just one. John the OFM may well include boats for crossing the Delaware based on Leutze's painting, even though Leutze seems to have used German boats as models and our parents yelled at us for standing up in the boat the way Washington does. John and I are Americans, Leutze's painting is an important part of our heritage, and it doesn't matter how it was, this is the way it was.

Grelber

depends on why you are doing something which you know is inaccurate.

It isn't wrong, their 15mm figures I use to represent a army

Just because it is in books does not mean that it still reflects historical accuracy. Most gamers want a certain look. That look my be based on certain books, or what a certain person has to say about the period. That does not mean that the figures based on that information are historically accurate.

the information given my reflect the desires of the leadership at that time, but it may not reflect the soldier on the battle field, due to the length of a campaign, weather conditions preceding or occurring at the time of the battle, etc.

I know one manufacturer, who served in Vietnam in the late 60's. When he created his Vietnam range on miniatures, he did not have them sculpted according to what he and his fellow soldiers were dressed like while serving in the field under combat conditions, as he knew they would not sell. He did them according to the "research" experts in the books had to say.

I have some Airfix Crusaders and Fujimi Matildas very nicely painted in the 70s in what is now known to be 'bad' Caunter. They look sharp and will never be redone.

In point of fact, I will probably do some of my 1/285s in the same colors.

Besides, I have been told blue is my color.

I prefer to Imagi-nations, so no historian can prove me wrong.

Personally, I prefer games set in World War II. I'll be careful not to have a Panzer IV F2 crossing France in 1940 or a Sherman Firefly fighting at Iwo Jima, but I don't really care about details such as unit affiliation. Since I can't afford to buy 500 Panzer VIb's (roughly the total production run), the handful I have will be pressed into service with the 103 SS, the 501st, or the 503rd Hvy Bn, as required. So long as they're not painted in the North African camo pattern, I'm quite satisfied.

And since I'm converting to 1:600 scale, uniform details are hardly a matter of great importance: you're certainly not going to try and paint shoulder service patches, much less worry whether the piping is infantry green, artillery red or armoured pink.

In any event, in this, I totally agree with TKindred: it's a game, first and foremost. I respect those who see their armies as miniature works of art; I admire their dedication to the craft and envy the time they can afford to spend researching and painting their troops; but given limited time to study (unfortunately), I am more interested in investing it learning about battles, tactics, weapon capabilities, and so on, than in tracing the evolution of cap badges or discovering at what point the Devil's Brigade switched from paratroop boots to regular infantry boots.

The only problems I have with accuracy in miniatures is models that are 100% out of historical context. Vikings with the goofy horns wearing kilts? No thank you.
Early Saxon fryd standard bearer holding a cross? No thanks.
Generic "barbarian" miniatures have always bothered me too. Celts and Germans had their own distinct looks and identifying features.

Gods help me if my Macedonians have gladius-like-swords…. and may all be damned if my 1812 Americans are wearing bicorn hats and using French muskets (whoops) (obvious sarcasm)
Only serious people who like history and only history…. like the really minute details are the people who bother with 150% accuracy.

I'm a total history buff. I love to learn all I can. But the second I get upset about an extra button, or a pike that is too long…. put me down

My2¢

Figures should be a fair representation of the original troop type, otherwise they fail as game pieces.
That said it a thing of beauty when a player has carefully researched and built an army so that every unit is as hear as can be got to what we think they looked like it doesn't necessarily fight any better, but it is to be appreciated as a work of art in its own right.
Roy

I think you have to be honest in your claims – if you say 'I think this is correct', you ought to be trying to ensure that is so. If you say 'this is an approximation' or even 'the figures show a traditional interpretation which is now probably wrong', who can argue?

I try to be 'plausible' in my reconstructions, and always go back and correct, however sharp the pain … although I do occasionally keep an item or two for my curiosities cabinet.

I should add, perhaps, that although I set comparatively puritanical standards for my own collection (as good a job as I can do), I don't nit-pick other people's figures and can almost always share the joy they get and admire their work. Seeing other people's soldiers is one of wargaming's finer treats.

Phil

I am not too fussed most of the time, I can usually justify to myself most of the inaccuracies. I have just started a Seleucid army and I am not too fussed with mixing miniatures from around 250bc with those of Daphne parade in 166BC because otherwise I would be pretty limited in terms of what miniatures are actually available. I tend to be more strict when it comes to Classical period though.

As 'yesthatphil' said

Then we buy the latest rules/army list and change the bases.

If there is a host of reference material by someone other than a drunkard, a philosopher wannabe, a closet masochist, or some other background highlights, let me know.

If there is existing photographic..not artist painted..not representative interpretive art..actual hardcore photographs, I might find cause to pick. Even then, that pick must compete with a healthy dose of reality and economics.

The point is for anything pre-Industrial age, I almost never pick as the general level of people who lived back before couldn't see straight anyway and the level of textile skills for the masses bordered on cave-mentality.

For post-Industrial, take your choice of A. They are mine, not yours, B. I don't have money for another green paint, C. I am too busy making money to afford them at all to say nothing about the time it takes to paint the damn cuffs the right colour, or the ever popular D. off, Button-Twit, at least I bought deodorant rather than another reference book!

Photographic evidence only accepted.
Historical accuracy is at times a matter of personal opinion or likes. I have no desire to re-paint my Waterloo British with faded jackets and pink webbing.
I love it when these pedants apply the same critique to Fantasy and Science Fiction.

I think the biggest sin is not doing your own research into the period your gaming, or why bother call it historical wargaming. As for (changes of) interpretations, it is just that, an interpretation, doesn't mean it is the Holy Grail.

@Aiden you said

What's more if such "accurate" products were available what would it take to persuade you they were genuinely accurate and that it was the rest of the gaming world that was wrong?

As one "leading" academic as suggested the chance of an eureka moment happening now is becoming more slim, as we have a fairly good idea of how things were….(To be fair though I'm sure there have been many finds documented and catalogued and then lost since the late 19th Century globally……a crime, certainly….)

So Aiden, are you suggesting that you / you know of someone who wants to release a range of figures that is completely different in style and concept to what is already out there?

To persuade me I would want to know and see all the sources that you have used to create the "genuinely accurate" figure range….I know of companies like Aventine and many more who carry out painstaking research to obtain a figure that they believe could have looked liked, and the sources they use are not just from wargaming literature like Osprey etc. (having said that books like Osprey although compact, have a fantastic wealth of information within them, as goes for many other smaller niche publications so don't dismiss these out of hand…they are a very useful secondary source of readily available information)

See this discusson (towards the bottom) about how difficult it is to create a new figure range with just fragments of information with archaeological finds like figurines and pictorial sources.

As for your own wargame armies, they're your figures and you do with them as you like.

Close enough is good enough for me. As long as it's not fantasy then it's probably OK.
For example, my 1940 Germans can serve through to '45. Not all Wehrmacht were lucky enough to have the cool camo smocks and ankle boots. And my Late Roman/dark age barbarians are all spear armed with round shields. None of these artificial differences between Goths, Franks, Saxons etc. Trousers and tunic is good enough for me. Commanders can have some special treatment for variety.

So Aidan, are you suggesting that you / you know of someone who wants to release a range of figures that is completely different in style and concept to what is already out there?

To put my initial question in context. I have a professional background in archaeological conservation and artefact research, have worked with some of the Uk's, perhaps the worlds leading experts on certain aspects of early medieval culture and continue to make replica artefacts for museum experimental archaeology projects around the world. Consequently I try to stay reasonably up to date with the latest research into various aspects of this period.

Most of this research is just too specialist to have any bearing on war gaming miniatures, but there are a few more directly visible popular misconceptions that seem so well rooted they are not even questioned, things which might fall outside of the usual areas researchers may think to check.

An example might be the popular view of the Vikings being, dirty, wild haired barbarians raping and pillaging their way across Europe. There's is no shortage of evidence to show they were a people fastidious about their attire, hygiene and personal grooming, fashionable well dressed men with clean well trimmed hair and beards. There are even contemporary sources mocking them for this vanity and accusing them of seducing all the Saxon noblewomen.

However, even if the Wagnarian horned helmets have now been consigned to fantasy, you'll be hard pushed to find miniatures of Vikings that don't show them without a spectacular excess of hair, which people seem to happily accept.

The point is for anything pre-Industrial age, I almost never pick as the general level of people who lived back before couldn't see straight anyway and the level of textile skills for the masses bordered on cave-mentality.

Without wishing to single out any individual for criticism, so apologies to Augustus for using your quote as an example, this is one of the well rooted misconceptions I was referring to above.

I actually work with a wide range of textile specialists replicating early medieval fabrics for use by museums. The level of detail we've been working to has involved starting with genetic studies of surviving archaeological fleece samples so as to work with rare breed sheep farmers to try mix modern fleeces to re-create something that would spin replica yarn with the same technical properties and behaviour as the period originals. By modern standard many of these hand spun, hand woven and hand sewn textiles are far in excess of what most modern machines can produce. I know this for a fact as I've been in negotiation with many commercial spinners and weavers about trying to upscale production to meet demand from museums. It's not a question of money as some of these museums will pay thousands of pounds for a single replica garment, modern technology just can't replicate the quality of materials slowly made by hand by skilled craft workers.

There is perhaps a reason why, if we look through trade documents and accounts from later medieval periods when such things are actually available in great enough numbers to draw significant conclusions, that it can be shown that for most people the cost of a new outfit represented about one years income and would be expected to last for generations.

Technology hasn't made everything better, it's just enabled us to make most things faster and cheaper creating a disposable society.

I'd actually read before (many moons ago and I can't remember where) that the idea that ancient/medieval clothing was drab and faded was a misconception and that the colours were far stronger and vibrant than we have supposed. Perhaps you could shed some light on this?
Probably wouldn't have much impact on gaming as we are usually portraying an army that has been on campaign for a while so isn't exactly in it's Sunday best (thus allowing for your unkempt Vikings) but I'm curious whether it's true or not.

If there is a host of reference material by someone other than a drunkard, a philosopher wannabe, a closet masochist, or some other background highlights, let me know.

If there is existing photographic..not artist painted..not representative interpretive art..actual hardcore photographs, I might find cause to pick. Even then, that pick must compete with a healthy dose of reality and economics.

Indeed … no photographs before the camera was invented … Photos are quite easy to fake or misinterpret, of course – so intelligent use of sources is still required (photos solve few historical problems …

The point is for anything pre-Industrial age, I almost never pick as the general level of people who lived back before couldn't see straight anyway and the level of textile skills for the masses bordered on cave-mentality.

Then again, they managed to build the pyramids without modern machinery … so they must have some clever people compensating for the mass of pre-modern ignorance …

off, Button-Twit, at least I bought deodorant rather than another reference book!

Although that does mix the tribes up a bit (book stalls being generally more pleasant than the Bring & Buy/Flea market …) … Nevertheless, as one of those who spent enough years at University to qualify under your first paragraph, I have to accept there is nothing like a well-reasoned argument …

Phil

Agent Brown,

I always say there are three aspects to portraying any aspect and period of history; 1) what was common across society, 2) what was possible with the most advanced of period technology 3) What is actually representative of the social group you are portraying.

In terms of ancient/medieval clothing most period breeds of sheep were natural drab grey brown colours, and this didn't over dye well, what's more dying cloth took time and resources, consequently most cloth was drab creams, pale greys and light browns with a little natural black. Linens were usually off white colours. Most ancient period society would probably be "a symphony of beige". However, in terms of war-gaming it might be that you are not portraying the 90% or more of society for whom this would be true.

At the other extreme of society, fancy expensive imported dyes, fine white wool and silk accessible to the noble elite could replicate almost any colour conceivable, and much use was made of gem stones and genuine gold and silver wire to decorate cloth. To the modern eye all that gaudy bling would probably have looked tacky even at a 70's themed disco night!

Somewhere in between the two extremes the more accessible dyes tended to give muted, drabber colours and were not necessarily that light stable over time. That said never underestimate the possibility of natural products to surprise you. Some clothes dyed weld yellows can look like modern high visibility security jackets, and weld was a common dye, Orchil a commonly used lichen usually gives a weak lavender colour, but I have seen one batch that surprised all the experts by producing a richer purple than imperial Roman murex. Natural dyes are dependent upon so many environmental conditions they can be quite unpredictable.

The Vikings reputation as fashion victims, may mean they invested far more time and resources in their clothing than we give them credit for, or shows up in the archaeological record. So where you place your war games figures between the two extremes is a matter of taste.

In terms of your Vikings. If you are portraying a raiding party then these would probably be the wealthier aspects of mainstream society gathered from across a wider area, lead by a much wealthier individual. People who could afford to sail away and leave their farms to be run by their wives and slaves. If you are portraying the folks they are raiding then they would probably be more hastily drawn from a smaller geographical area, so would probably include more folk from the local neighbourhood, folk with less expensive clothes and simpler weapons/armour.

I'd actually read before (many moons ago and I can't remember where) that the idea that ancient/medieval clothing was drab and faded was a misconception and that the colours were far stronger and vibrant than we have supposed. Perhaps you could shed some light on this?
Probably wouldn't have much impact on gaming as we are usually portraying an army that has been on campaign for a while so isn't exactly in it's Sunday best (thus allowing for your unkempt Vikings) but I'm curious whether it's true or not.

Aiden Campbell, Agent Brown,

I'd offer this much: Don't always fall for the "beige society" rubric. It isn't true.

As you well know, there are any number of variables involved in the dying process of cloth which will affect the final color of the product. Some of these include, but are not limited to, the type of wool being used, the amount of lanolin in said wool, the mineral content of the water for the dye lot, the type of dye used, the type and chemical makeup of the mordant used to fix the dye, the type of vessel used for the dye lot, the amount and consistency of heat, etc.

The thing is, that there are sufficient natural dyes available to even ancient cultures to create vibrant colors in the cloth. There were, of course, some more muted colors used, especially for lower-class garments, and this continued all the way up to the introduction of anodyne dyes and modern computer control.

An example of this is red. While bright and deep reds COULD be produced, the majority of reds for common use (and later, for example, British uniforms) were of a madder red, being made of clays. More of a brick red than the bright ones we normally see. It was a result not of a lack of skill, but of expense both of time and money.

The big problem was consistency. While the contents of a single dye lot would be even, it was virtually impossible to match colors from one dye lot to another. You could get close, but the idea of uniform color as we know it today simply wasn't possible until modern times. Uniformity had more to do with TYPE and GENERAL color than exact matches, etc.

As to the drab colors, this is much more a result of exposure to the elements than any other factor. The use of natural dyes coupled with the mordants used to fix them gave beautiful colors which would fade over a period of a few weeks to a few months when exposed to bright sunlight. What started off as a bright or madder red might well go to a brick red, then to a greyish-rose color.

Greys were notorious for fading to a "butternut" hue of some shade of drab. The prime example of this may be seen in ACW period Confederate clothing. 99% of Confederate uniform garments began as some shade of grey. Virtually every existing CS garment in some shade of drab began that way, as evidenced by examination of areas hidden from sunlight, such as inside of collars, pockets, etc.

But bright and darker shades of blue were certainly available from woad, and even indigo was not as difficult to acquire as many think.

Dark Aged Irish were referenced to being fond of a saffron yellow, and the mixing of yellow dye and lampblack certainly can be adjusted for shades of olive to grass green.

I would strongly argue that ancient societies had plenty of access to bright, vibrant colors vice the muted ones we hear of, and used these on a regular basis. What I would add, or, rather, ask you to consider, is that these clothes, for the common folks, were reserved for important occasions. Weddings, feasts, celebrations, and war. For every day use, undyed clothing would have been more the norm, or clothing dyed in drab colors, perhaps the leftover dyes from the brighter runs. These were their working clothes, much as I have a tuxedo for formal use, but jeans and T-shirts for construction work.

I do agree with you regarding the strength and longevity of ancient wools, being hand-spun, or loomed by smaller machines, etc.

V/R

I'd offer this much: Don't always fall for the "beige society" rubric. It isn't true.

In terms of access to dyes, I've a fair amount of practical experience in terms of actually growing/using period dyes and mordants, and in terms of academic research I Like to think I'm on top of most current research, as such I don't disagree with much of what you said, (if you are into such things then the name Penny Walton Rogers will be familiar, someone whom I shared a work bench with in the labs at York).

The main point people always seem to ignore when talking about access to dyes, is that the dye is only part of the equation; to produce bright colours from dyes you need access to white, or at least very pale wool and most period breeds of sheep weren't white. The Romans introduced such sheep to the British isles but they weren't suited to our climate needing more care. So by and large the evidence we have suggests that ordinary folk tended to stick to native breeds, especially after the Romans left. Hence most of the clothes of most folk would be shades of beige, grey and brown, not because they were dyed grey or brown, or faded to those colours or because they didn't have some coloured dye plants growing around them but because that's what colour the sheeps wool was. After all it's only in later medieval periods (post 14th century)that sheep became predominantly an animal kept for supplying fleece to the growing wool industry, For most of history they were dairy animals. Keeping a weak, poor milking sheep just because it had soft white wool suited to dying bright colours was a decadent luxury for the rich. You kept the best milking sheep you could get and accepted whatever fleece it had as a useful by product for making clothes.

I will say however that the argument about ordinary folk having access to some dyes that could be used to produce brighter colours, which may have been used selectively with the palest of wools they could get hold of in order to produce "special occasion" clothing is one I myself have made in the past. Generally it's convenient to assume the brightest colours were the preserve of the rich, in truth what was probably the case was that the rich favoured the colours that the poor couldn't achieve, which may mean there were certain brighter colours they may have avoided, though I'm sure any colour would have been seen as preferable to un-dyed drab grey/brown.

It could take a lot of extra effort to sort and grade or trade fleece to get the palest fibre suitable for dying, and you would need a certain degree of wealth to achieve this or even have a second set of clothes for wear as "best". And as mentioned most dyes would soon fade and mellow.

It would however be churlish to deny the possibility that for weddings or other special occasions that a community might go out of it's way to try provide a great looking piece of "new" clothing as a special gift to the bride or groom.

Again we come back to the notion of what was normal, what was possible and where any individual may fit between the two extremes at any particular point.

As a footnote TKindred, I'm sure you know this but madder is a plant root, with the best being grown in the Himalayas, I presume in mentioning clays that you are referring to more recent madder substitutes, not suggesting madder as used by early dyers was a mineral dye?

As much as I am "dyeing" to hear more

For me close enough is good enough, won't use chariots or tanks against Napoleon's Old Guard (or zombies either). But the wrong shade of blue or the tails on that coat should have been two inches longer no concern at all.

Is it a fairly good best try then I am fine, If you desire to argue then have fun.

miniatures from around 250bc

Yes, till December 250 BC; but these miniatures are not correct afterwards, because the colour of their underpants was changed by general staff order in January 249 BC.

Aiden,

Concur. My use of the word "madder" is to be illustrative of the color/shade, rather than the plant for dyeing.

Although a renaissance painting, I've often considered this to be a good example of the sorts of colors available to the people who weren't "upper class".

The Wedding Dance, by Pieter Bruegel the Elder, oil (1566).

TKindred,

The Bruegel painting does show a good selection the sort of colours possible with madder red and woad blue (two of the more light fast historic dyes compared to the less stable yellows and greens), along with what could be done by way of bleaching linens to create brighter whites. As such it probably is a fairly accurate depiction of ordinary folks "Sunday best" in the 16th century.

However this was a period by which the textiles trade was well established as a huge international business when centuries of cross breeding sheep had produced hardy breeds with soft white fleece aimed at supplying dyeable fibre to this textiles industry. It was also the norm in this period for ordinary folk to have access to professionally woven and dyed cloth bought from merchants to have made up into garments by tailors and when owning more than one set of clothes was becoming more common, such that they could have "best clothes". Go back in time another 500 or 1000years, and access to these dyestuffs would have been rarer, access to white wools suitable for dying would have been much rarer, as this was a time when most clothes would have been home produced from whatever raw materials they had access to on their own farms, which brings us back to the coarser grey brown fleeces of their diary sheep. With yarn hand spun on drop spindles (there were no spinning wheels back then, cloth woven on warp weighted looms, and hand sewn this could take some where between 400-1000hrs for a basic coarsely woven tunic. Anybody posh wanting something finely woven, dyed and embroidered could easily be looking at a few thousand hours work for one garment.

There's some fairly comprehensive documentation published on the extensive amount of late Viking age textiles recovered from the frozen soils of Greenland, where over many hundreds, if not thousands of textile samples from various cemeteries it has been shown that less than one third of the woollen fabrics were woven from white wool, or fibre light enough to be dyed, and that only a fraction of these "light" wools were actually dyed, many were clearly worn as naturally "off white" clothes alongside the mainstream naturally grey/brown clothes.

It doesn't dispute the point that ordinary folk in the "ancient world" may have had limited access to coloured clothes for special occasions, and that this became more and more common with the passage of time, but I do feel it reinforces the point that the common place norm for most people most of the time, for most of history has been the greys and browns of the sheep in their fields, used as it came off the backs of their sheep, simply because it was naturally too dark to make dying it worth the effort, even if they did have suitable dyestuffs.

@Aiden Campbell great discussion. You were not entirely forthcoming with your actual reason but now you have eluded to it, I can see the reason for the post.

I too dispute such archaic statements like "All Roman soldiers wore red tunics…" or that "all Germans wore just a loin cloth and / or a fur cloak.."

As I said great discussion and I hope to learn a little more about ancient socities, the way they carried out their day to day lives, the impact and form this had on the military endeavours of the society and their idiosyncrasies.

Maximus,

The real reasoning behind my initial enquiry is that I've been approached about, and agreed to sculpt a new range of Dark age gaming miniatures, which as you can imagine is going to be a real treat for me.

On learning of my knowledge and passion for the period the manufacturer who is commissioning this range has given me carte-blanche as both artist and academic to sculpt whatever I think is right. That is both flattering and also a worry as I know from much of the work I've done in re-enactment/museum circles that until people get to know me and of my background I've faced a lot of criticism and accusations of getting things wrong simply for going against popular misconception not supported by research. I try not to be one of those sorts that seemingly picks faults with everyone and everything or rams my research up their noses, but increasingly those who know me turn to me for advice and recommendations.

In gaming circles I'm an unknown and this background will count for nothing, so I've been trying to decide if I should take the safe option and sculpt stuff that's in line with other miniatures already out there, or be brave and sculpt things that risk facing a barrage of criticism which I'll be forced to endlessly defend to people who may or may not actually be interested in listening to the research upon which they are based, they'll just vote with their wallets and buy something else.

So now the truths out in the open, any views?

look forward to seeing your figures

My get out of jail card with ancients is "wow, were you there?"

With all due respect, I'm not sure this is much of a "get out of jail card". It presupposes that we know nothing of events prior to our births. With the wrong player, it could excuse a lot of errors.

Personally, I can forgive some inaccuracies and inconsistencies as I am pushing toy soldiers on a tabletop with like minded individuals. I'm not adjudicating a Ph.D dissertation.

TKindred,

I'm not sure the Bruegel painting tells us much. The Renaissance is not the Dark Ages or earlier. Oil painting is not fabric dying. The pigments used in painting are not those used in fabric dyes. Paintings are hung, away from sunlight, where clothing is worn outdoors, muddied, washed (repeat) and is definitely not color fast.

As stated above, these people are shown in their "Sunday best".

So if the latest thinking from leading academics and historians contradicts popular opinion and the references we do have access to, and much of what we consider to be "true" turns out to be nothing more than misconception, would you actually want to buy "accurate" miniatures to correct this, or would you still want something that fitted in with all the other manufacturers "wrong" products you already have.

This is an issue every historian, let alone scientist, miltiary artist, and wargamer faces. Better information is always cropping up, making what was just written, researched, sculpted, or painted old news and incorrect. Changing every error as they are discovered could seriously cut into gaming, considering the number of errors, shortcuts and poor research some figure manufactures put out there…

What's more if such "accurate" products were available what would it take to persuade you they were genuinely accurate and that it was the rest of the gaming world that was wrong?

Not sure who the 'rest of the gaming world is', but considering how often gamers and designers do that anyway, ignore what the 'rest' say, I don't think it's much of an issue. ;-7

Bowman,

whilst all you have said about the distinction between renaissance and dark ages along with the oil paints not being fabric dyes is true, I would still suggest from working with many natural plant dyes that the Bruegel painting does give a good representation of madder reds and woad blues.

The real question is what percentage of the population such colours would be available to at any point in time, either as everyday norms, or as something rare and special.

My interpretation of the evidence is that during the dark ages such colours would be viewed as something special to all but a small elite of society. Indeed whilst there was an amusing quote on another thread on this forum likening researching facts from the Viking sagas to being akin to using superman comics to look up bus timetables. Several Viking Sagas make much of characters wearing "coloured" clothes when carrying out significant acts, though rarely do they actually mention the specific colour. Many interpret this to mean that any colour at all was viewed as special and that it wasn't necessary to individually rate red as better than blue or worse than yellow, plain and simple colour had a WOW factor.

I'm not sure the Bruegel painting tells us much. The Renaissance is not the Dark Ages or earlier. Oil painting is not fabric dying. The pigments used in painting are not those used in fabric dyes. Paintings are hung, away from sunlight, where clothing is worn outdoors, muddied, washed (repeat) and is definitely not color fast.

As stated above, these people are shown in their "Sunday best".

Also, as there wasn't any CG, airbrushing and photo enhancing, painters would often produce 'idealized' pictures that could have little to do with reality. Most historical portraits are 'airbrushed' to make the subject recognizable, but much better looking… And of course, paintings were propaganda, with political and cultural purposes having nothing to do with 'accuracy.' [sound familiar?]

It is said that paintings of the Prince, the British Regent 1811-1812, shed forty to fifty pounds in any painting of him.

How representative the Bruegel painting is of the typical peasant, would take some comparative study. As an ideal, or reflection of the best possible world, I would think it is would be safe to assume.