"Looking for connoisseurs of ECW uniforms and outfits" Topic

Hello everyone ,
Please explain to me why Minifigs 25mm Round Head Infantry figures have cavalry helmets and why are the 25mm Round Head Musketeer figures helmeted?

I would also like to know if the uniforms and outfits of the Scottish figurines in this range are valid?

And if not, what's wrong with them?

Like many old Minifigs ranges, their historical accuracy is questionable.
Those infantry bear no relation to any historical types.
Are the Scottish infantry wearing bonnets?

When they were sculpted in the 1970s, there were some very strange ideas abou what ECW armies wore and some odd stereotypes. There's been a lot of research done since.

Those Minifigs aren't accurate or well sculpted. Better figures have been produced over the last 50 years than those ancient curiosities. They're not worth the money at £1.65 GBP each.

The answer is still the same as when you first asked it TMP link

@Dexter Ward
Someone told me :
No feathers on roundheads.

Few or no lobster pot helmets in the roundhead infantry.

No helmets in the royalist infantry…(?)

It's a beginning.

The same told me there were 2 Scottish armies in this range
Covenanting- the figurines in bonnets.

All the beautiful helmeted Scottish infantryman figurines in this range are for the Covenanters.

And Montrose's army, a mix of Highlanders, Scots and Irish-looking English (they don't have trews), especially the cavalry which should be made with the roundhead figures.

@Paskal
Frankly people will stop bothering trying to engage with you if you continue this habit of ignoring answers you do not like and plough on asking the same questions in the hope that someone will eventually say something that conforms with your fixed preconceptions.

Accusing people of being "off topic" when they have given straight and accurate answers is just insulting.

It is very simple. If you want to use Minifigs, use them. If you want figures better founded on historical knowledge, do not use them. Up to you.

Just do not be rude to people who reply to you.

Paskal, the two sides essentially were identically dressed in the ECW. They might be wearing different coloured feathers, but that's about it.
So whatever you have been told it's not accurate, any more than those figures are

No Paskal, this is a discussion forum. You do not control the narrative, and no-one has to agree with you.

As for off topic, what I posted were facts. Deal with it, and tone down the vitriol.

@Dexter Ward
And there was no clothing fashion?

In this case, there was no colored scarf to distinguish yourself from the opponent?

Uniform colours were set by regimental colonels. There was no standard. Sometimes coloured sashes were used but often not.
It's a good thing; you can use the same figures for both sides. Just swap over the flags.

By "scarfs" I think you mean sashes?

This also has been covered in TMP:
TMP link

To save you reading it, sash colour as a foolproof identifier of allegiance is dubious.

Sorry to be pedantic, what is commonly called a sash is more correctly called a scarf. Unsurprisingly the subject is covered at length, along with clothing issue, equipment etc (all referenced to contemporary sources) over at KeepYourPowderDry

Please be as "pedantic" as you like – I'm here to learn.

Your blog is, indeed, a great resource I've used many times – clearly not enough to pick up the sash/scarf thing!

My understanding is that sash (which is derived from Arabic) started to supplant scarf in this sense around the end of the 17th century, so perhaps entering common English parlance by the time of the Nine Years War and War of the Spanish Succession.

The funny thing is that sash starts off (at least in Arabic) usually being associated with the head (eg turbans or similar) and migrates down the body in English to the shoulder or waist, whilst scarf does the opposite, migrating up to the neck and head…

A comment on the Minifig ECW 25mm's. I think that the movie "Cromwell" may have influenced their look. After a few friends and I saw the movie in 1970, we were quite taken by the pike and shot period and Minifigs were the first figures we bought. The original casting were very crisp and well done for the time. Parliamentarians wore lobster tail helmets and Royalists, hats with feathers. Simple! Just like the movie!

The Scots were somewhat stranger but still fun. Kilts with morions and breeches with bonnets. Presumably Royalists and Covenanters.

I still use them to this day (having only to please myself) and a combination of the Minifig Scots are currently proxies for the Laggan army in Ireland.

@Dexter Ward
Only the infantry of the new model army was standardized in terms of the color of their tunics?

@ochoin
No, by "scarfs" I mean "écharpes",to distinguish political or religious parties on the battlefields like during the French wars of religion, but it seems that in the 17th century this was no longer the custom.

@Guillaume deGuy
Yes it's a good hypothesis and for fun it's tempting, but royalist pikemen not helmeted and perhaps not armored as was suggested to me outside TMP (see above)even to me it seems strange and in addition, pikemen in plaids for the army of Montrose, which regiments?

And in my hordes of 25mm minifigs, all these roundhead infantrymen wearing cavalry helmets, is it in this film that we see them ?

link

Another problem, the horses in this minifig range, no Holster or double Holster to what type of rider should this type of horse be assigned?

Hi Paskal,

My point was that the old Minifig 25mm's are fun, not particularly accurate.
I mean a musketeer wearing a lobstertail helmet with tri-bar down, breast and back plates, and tassets can only be called fun! They more probably belong on the fantasy board doing Lord Kelvin of Otherwhen.

The Minifig designer (five years before George Gush's book) may have based the Scots musketeer on the well-known print of MacKay's regiment at Stettin. I recall that we used that print to guide our painting in the early days.

Possibly both the Strathbogie and Strathaven regiments, who were likely configured as Pike and Shot during most of Montrose's first campaign as a royalist, had one or more companies in highland dress. A pure quess and I would defer to your knowledge.

You are quite correct, none of the foot at either Edgehill and Nasbey in the Cromwell movie are wearing lobstertail helmets. The Minifig designer seems to use that device to separate Parliamentarian from Royalist. The moviemaker used other devices to separate the foot (some of a Victorian print nature).

Most of my Minifig 25mm cavalry is packed away but my recollection is that the Scots horse came without holsters, the rest with?

@Guillaume deGuy
I too think that the old 25 mm Minifigs are fun, but not particularly inaccurate, especially when they are inspired by the works of the WRG, except in rare cases like that of rounhead infantrymen, besides the ECW have not treated in a book WRG; this explains that.

I also wonder if the designer of Minifig did not use this system of assigning the type of cavalry helmet for the parliamentary infantry to distinguish it from that of the royalists, in this case it is to pure and simple artistic license and it's a shame.

Also as Dexter Ward wrote above "you can use the same figures for both sides".

Basic clothing for infantry in the BCW was essentially the same for both Parliament and Royalist Foot. Head gear was slightly different with Royalist musketeers of the Oxford Army being issued Montero Caps which I'm unaware of any being issued to Parliamentarian foot, although some may have bought their own (Black Tom Fairfax famously wore a red one). Other wise the common head gear was a knitted Monmouth cap or a felt brimmed hat. No lobster Pot helmets or similar other than occasional officers wearing privately purchased items.

Pikemen wore the same basic clothing but added some armour (if they were well equipped). Back and breast with a Morion would be considered well equipped. Mostly the Tassets (thigh armour) were ditched as the war went on.

Scots Covenanting infantry would be in similar clothing to their English counter parts but would commonly be in Hodden Grey and wearing a blue bonnet. Pikemen probably less likely to be armoured than the English. Montrose's Irish would be in jacket and tight fitting trews and his remaining Scottish troops in a mix of highland and lowland civilian clothing.

English cavalry was almost all equipped as harquebusiers with buff coat, back and breast and lobster pot helmet, if well equipped, but some Royalist Horse was badly equipped and lacked armour and in the worst cases any firearms. Scottish Horse would be less likely to have armour and Covenantor horse included lancers often as a troop within a regiment rather than as seperate units.

So you have a lot of choice but infantry in buff coats lobster pots and hooped sleeves is not accurate. Although, it's your army so go with what you like the look of.

Pikemen wore the same basic clothing but added some armour (if they were well equipped). Back and breast with a Morion would be considered well equipped. Mostly the Tassets (thigh armour) were ditched as the war went on.

You would have thought the more armour the better. Is there any tactical reason that extra armour got discarded?

Huevans011, the notion of soldiers discarding armour whilst on campaign is undocumented supposition.

As the Wars progressed we know what armour was issued, and how (and why) it changed for three reasons (cost, availability and evolution of armour), all of which we can document from primary sources

Firstly cuirassiers. They fell out of favour for two reasons – shortage of horses able to carry fully armoured men, and the cost of both armour and horses. Plus of course this coinciding with the development of the classic harquebusier armour (cheaper, more mobile, availability of horses, with the trade off of only a little reduction in protection).

Fully armoured pikemen. Again this is mostly a cost related issue, and for the Royalist regiments availability of equipment (as the timeline progressed)as they were having to import most of their equipment. Plus there is adaptation of armour. Monck (with regards to NMA) wanting a tasset like buff leather device for pikemen (partly to protect clothing from breast plates, but also to work as a mini tasset).

Any tactical advantages of this evolution? Lightness and manoeuvrability

@Elenderil
Thank you, it's very informative, but all the Scottish figurines with plaid and bonnets are still artistic license?

@huevans011
Yes it's true, it's the same thought for the religious wars in France in the 16th century, authors decided that between the beginning in 1562 and the end of the religious wars in 1598, that the pikemen abandoned their tassets and arm protections only to end up with breastplates and backplates…

Why wouldn't they have done the same during the Italian wars? Certainly not because of the growing danger of firearms, because the Swiss in the French army were still heavily equipped in the second half of the 17th century.

@KeepYourPowderDry
You are right, we must never forget the financial reason because money is the sinews of war.

The Scots are the more accurate figures in the range.

Lowland regiments were considerably more organised in the 1630s/early 40s than the English Trained Bands. Regiments were organised by local church committees. Men were given clothing and equipment (unlike the majority of Trained Bands). Clothes were invariably Hodden grey cloth, the cheapest and most readily available fabric in Scotland. Headgear was the ubiquitous 'blew bonnet'.

Highlanders would have worn long shirts and the great kilt. An almost toga like length of cloth. Bonnets most likely too.

As for tartan patterns? Coloured checked cloth was very expensive and a status symbol, so preserve of the very rich.

Expect many rank and file to be wearing plain great kilts.

They certainly wore checked cloth that had local patterns, but it wasn't really until 1745 that clan tartan was first recorded. Clan tartan (that we think of) very much became a thing in Victorian times, but certain patterns were associated with particular clans in the mid eighteenth century.

For a more detailed explanation with evidence) see link

You will also find links to answers to all your other clothing questions there too

The Scots are the more accurate figures in the 25mm MiniFigs ECW range ?

Yes, the Scots are the more accurate in both the 25mm and 15mm Minifigs ranges

@KeepYourPowderDry

But all these references of 25mm MiniFigs of pikemen and musketeers in plaid and bonnets, which Scottish troop are they for?

Except the highlanders, I thought the majority of Scottish pikemen and musketeers were in gray trousers and jackets with blue caps or helmets.

There were a number of regiments of highlanders who were equipped with pike and muskets. So they are accurate.

Just because I said that they are some of the more accurate figures in the range does not mean that they are 100% perfect. There aren't any lowland pike figures, which is a major omission.

@KeepYourPowderDry
Regiments of highlanders who were equipped with pike and muskets?

Which ones in which armies?

The Irish Troops in Montrose's army (O'Cahans and Laghtans) were pike and shot equipped. As far as I know these two units never exceeded 500 men each.

As for armour KYPD has nailed it. I should have been more exact in my language when I said ditched I meant they became less usual rather than being thrown away at the side of the road.

Pike and shot equipped highlanders? Yes, they existed which is why I mentioned it. Without looking it up, Donald Farquharson of Monaltrie's Highland Regiment of Foot were most likely equipped with P&S from June 1639 onwards. Pretty sure there were two more, but I can't remember off the top of my head.

The story of the Scots is incredibly complicated, the vast majority swapping sides to further their commanding officer's aims rather than a particular cause. Remember Montrose was originally a Covenanter.

Donald Farquharson of Monaltrie's Highland Regiment of Foot fought for the Army of the Solemn League and Covenant before fighting for Montrose.

To be honest, create a unit of troops and field them for pretty much any Scottish army that takes your fancy. The only real exception is Montrose's army – with only one exception, the classic Hodden grey clothed lowland regiments did not rally to his cause. They stayed committed to the Solemn League and Covenant, and fought against whoever the Presbyterian Kirk told them to.

@Elenderil
The Irish Troops in Montrose's army (O'Cahans and Laghtans) were pike and shot who wore plaids and bonnets?

Did the Irish dress like highlanders?

@KeepYourPowderDry
Did Scottish regiments wearing plaids and bonnets and equipped with pikes exist?

For ECW, it's the history of the outfits worn by the Scots that is incredibly complicated.

Paskal for the third time, yes highland Scots did field some pike and shot equipped regiments (so yes plaid and bonnets), the majority of highland regiments were equipped with bows, swords, muskets and axes.

Montrose's Irish Brigade were not highlanders, they wore Irish clothing (Trews, not plaid). As their clothes wore out they probably adopted lowland Scots Hodden grey.

For answers to all your questions please click on the link I posted on the 19th April.

'ECW' clothing of the Scots is actually really straightforward (in comparison with the early wars English).

@KeepYourPowderDry
Yes I have already seen your blog, it's a start in terms of information.

Paskal, you really should listen to Keep Your Powder Dry. He knows his stuff. Think his work on clothing and equipment is going to be published.

I doubt you will find anything more, or remotely as good as his blog, it's the best there is. He is probably one of the experts on uniforms, we are very lucky he posts here.

Kind words Sir John, thank you.

Very true, St. John.👍

He is also incredibly patient. So very, very patient. ;-)

I don't know if "KeepYourPowderDry" knows his stuff, since he is the only "specialist" on the subject with whom I have corresponded (via TMP).

Reading a lot and for a very, very long time, I bet he there are other "specialists" on ECW who would not agree with him, I believe that it is like that for all periods,( Alas even some would easily consider me that way for certain periods…) which concerns me I am not going to contradict "KeepYourPowderDry" because I am not qualified.

For the moment the only documentation I have is the two editions of "Renaissance Armies, 1480 – 1650" by George Gush and everything that Ospreys editions have published on the subject in M.A.A – Elites – Warriors – Campaigns and New Vanguards it's a start.

What do you think of what George Gush and Ospreys Editions have published on the subject?

Thanks for your kind words Charge The Guns.

One last time: there are no really good up to date generic books on the ECW. Helion continue to publish excellent books with fairly narrow focus.

Ospreys – very very dated. Replicate a Victorian romantic image of what they thought it should look like. Spurred on by the romantic story of Montrose, they created a whole ideal of how they imagined things should be. Tight fitting clothes, big hats, bigger feathers, striped rugby shirts. This image continues to this day in some quarters. IT IS COMPLETELY FABRICATED, and wrong.

This Victorian fantasy was picked up by the film Cromwell, and also the early days of the reenactment societies. Gush and the Ospreys date from this period and, whilst pretty to look at, have many many errors.

Things started changing mid 1990s. People started doing actual research from actual contemporary sources. Things started getting better. Haythornthwaite dates from this period, but relies too much on secondary sources, and just guessed what things should look like.

Research has moved on considerably. So even the slightly better Haythornthwaite looks very dated and inaccurate.

Gush and the Ospreys, perhaps best left to one side. Far too many errors and current research has moved on considerably.

Where do I get my information from? Mostly primary sources (National Archives, British Library, JSTOR online, National Army Museum, and from colleagues).

Charge The Guns, I think my stock of patience is now depleted. I shall bow out courteously

Yes,yes but the Gush and the Ospreys books with my 25mm MiniFigs figures, it's all old school, everything I love the most.

A genuine question Paskal, I'm not being sarcastic or being rude here.

If you are so set on your old school figures and books, why are you asking about uniforms and whether they are accurate.

Lots of people have pointed out that the figures are inaccurate, and Keep Your Powder Dry has very patiently pointed out that the books you are so fond of are now very inaccurate.

So why don't you just use the information in your books to help paint your figures?

If you want old school, use your old school books. But please don't be rude to people answering your questions. They are trying to help you. You might end up driving people away from this site.

I will do what I want…

That doesn't really answer John's question Paskal…some might even interpret it as another rude response

Now, it is strange that at the time when the masters of MiniFigs were made, their sculptors did not have more knowledge than that about the outfits of the combatants of a very famous conflict in the history of their own country.

Paskal, I don't know how old you are but I am seventy and can remember how little information about historical uniforms oand clothing was readily available for wargamers back then, before there were even Osprey books. School textbooks relied on old Victorian prints and pictures, so youngsters did believe that Parliamentarians wore striped jackets and lobster tail helmets.
Although the Civil War was 'a famous conflict', little research had been done into regimental clothing; authors wrote about campaigns and battles.
Nearly fifty years ago now, a friend of mine tried to correct a college lecturer who had stated that one of Parliament's advantages was its supply of 'muskets and bayonets' in the Tower of London, by pointing out that bayonets did not appear until much later in the 17th century. The response was "I'm interested in history, not things!"

@arthur1815
Me I'm interested in history and things!

And I only love and own my 25mm MiniFigs where there are even ranges from older periods where the outfits are respected.

That is to say that at the time when the masters of these figurines were made, the sculptors had more information on ancient armies than on the outfits of ECW and WOTR fighters which are wars much later and which directly concerns Great Britain…

Paskal, your final statement is probably correct, partly because of the Wargames Research Group's Armies & Enemies publications.

At that time, there were even worse mistakes made: the Airfix plastic ACW infantry, for example, wore webbing braces and ammunition pouches like those of WWI British infantry, not the leather cartridge pouches on a shoulder belt that were actually issued!

@arthur1815
However, despite all their faults, I only like these figurines and it's strange because it's not out of nostalgia.

For example if you saw the MiniFigs ranges in 25 mm on the "Crimean War" and "Franco Prussian War", you would have a heart attack…