"Are We Making Napoleonic Armies Too Untidy?" Topic
21 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
In order to respect possible copyright issues, when quoting from a book or article, please quote no more than three paragraphs.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Napoleonic Painting Guides Message Board
Areas of InterestNapoleonic
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Workbench Article
Featured Profile Article
Current Poll
Featured Book Review
|
 ochoin  | 07 Jan 2026 2:36 a.m. PST |
Looking at many modern Napoleonic figures and paint jobs, I sometimes wonder whether we may be over-correcting in our enthusiasm for "campaign dress". Period sources certainly show rolled greatcoats, worn lace, faded cloth, patched trousers, and even mixed headgear—but they also describe repeated attempts by officers to enforce uniformity, even on campaign. Most contemporary illustrations still show units that are recognisably uniformed, if not pristine. This raises a question for me: have some wargamers and painters pushed campaign wear so far that Napoleonic units start to look more like generic early-19th-century troops than formed armies of the period? For example:
– How much variation within a battalion is plausible?
– Is mixed headgear the exception or the norm?
– Should facings and lace still be clearly visible at unit level? Where do you personally draw the line between historical realism and visual coherence? And does your answer change by theatre (Peninsular vs Central Europe vs Russia)? I'm genuinely interested in how others balance evidence, aesthetics and practicality on the tabletop. |
| advocate | 07 Jan 2026 3:23 a.m. PST |
Are we talking at the start of a campaign season, or the end? |
| robert piepenbrink | 07 Jan 2026 3:31 a.m. PST |
Why do you write "we"? I'm not, personally, no. My battalions tend to be what generals and sergeants-major were trying for rather than what they achieved. If I really wanted a very mixed effect, I'd go for specific armies and periods. French in Spain at the transition point between bicorns and shakos and white and blue coats, or the retreat from Moscow would be cases in point. For myself, I want units to look good, and from a wargaming standpoint, I don't want any confusion over what unit or type of unit they are. But there are many ways to game historical miniatures. |
| YogiBearMinis | 07 Jan 2026 4:51 a.m. PST |
You actually also raise the interesting question of whether wargamers SHOULD be simulating the parade ground or the campaign ground. I think the original idea, and one we pursue when boys and young enthusiasts, is to emulate the splendor of parade dress on purpose. Then later, as we become more overall historical enthusiasts and knowledgeable, we start wanting to engage in something closer to historical simulation. There is something great about painting and viewing an army of parade dress perfection, but on the other hand, creating the diversity and weathering of campaign dress can be quite entertaining for veteran painters. TomAto, tomAHto, I guess. |
| KeepYourPowderDry | 07 Jan 2026 5:43 a.m. PST |
Embrace your inner Funcken. Or not. Your toys, do what you piques your fancy |
 ColCampbell | 07 Jan 2026 6:36 a.m. PST |
I tend to paint troops freshly dressed in the appropriate uniform. Jim |
| 79thPA | 07 Jan 2026 6:59 a.m. PST |
I tend to go with regulation dress because it is easier and quicker to paint. |
| Maggot | 07 Jan 2026 7:05 a.m. PST |
As amateur historians most of us see lines in documents such as "the men had worn out uniforms so changes were made" such as the AWI in the south or the Saratoga campaigns. And of course the logistics of maintaining hundreds of thousands of Napoleonic soldiers in uniforms that were overwhelmingly hand made was a daunting task. But, amazingly, it was done, and overall, uniforms lasted quite a long time given that they were worn every single day, in all weather. So as others have said, either way you go, you can't be wrong: parade ground or heavily modified campaign dress….both are historically accurate! |
| bobspruster | 07 Jan 2026 7:12 a.m. PST |
If they are regulars, I'll paint to the uniform standard, then use a gray wash to dust them up a bit. |
| Red Jacket | 07 Jan 2026 8:03 a.m. PST |
Unless I am painting for a diorama, I always paint to parade ground standards. Unfortunately, my finished product is generally lacking, but I try. |
 Flashman14 | 07 Jan 2026 8:26 a.m. PST |
I really should have a strong opinion here, but I don't. I'm more wrankled by painting French in sky blue tunics and told the "3 foot rule" or "on campaign it would have been this color." Invariably, this reasoning only applies to French and nobody bothers to model "campaign" fading for any other country, or for any other period. |
| Frederick | 07 Jan 2026 8:59 a.m. PST |
Well, my Napoleonics are 6mm so this is kind of a moot point – but for my 28mm SYW they are a mix of campaign worn and neat and tidy |
| Grattan54 | 07 Jan 2026 11:07 a.m. PST |
They are metal figures. They don't care how they are painted. If you want then to look war weary and mess up go for it. You want them to look great and well dressed then do that. It is just a game. |
| ochoin | 07 Jan 2026 11:25 a.m. PST |
Several replies have made me think that manufacturers may be an unspoken factor in all this. Many modern Napoleonic ranges seem to bake in a particular interpretation of campaign dress at the sculpting stage: loose straps, rolled greatcoats, open coats, minimal lace, sometimes deliberately "softened" detail. Once that choice is made in metal, plastic or resin, the painter's freedom is already constrained. You can paint neat and tidy, but you're still painting a figure that was designed to look campaign-worn. Conversely, older ranges — and some newer ones that consciously follow that tradition — are very clearly sculpted as regulation or near-parade dress, with crisp lace and straps. Those figures almost demand a cleaner paint job to look right. So I wonder whether what looks like a shift in historical interpretation is partly a shift in what manufacturers think will sell: campaign-worn figures appealing to experienced painters and skirmish gamers, regulation figures appealing more to traditional mass-battle gamers. In that sense, the question may not be "should we model campaign or parade dress?", but "how much of that decision is already being made for us by the ranges we buy?" I'd be interested to hear from anyone who consciously chooses one manufacturer over another because of this — or who mixes ranges to get a particular visual effect. |
| Martin Rapier | 07 Jan 2026 11:25 a.m. PST |
My chaps are nice and smart in their parade uniforms. |
| 14Bore | 07 Jan 2026 12:13 p.m. PST |
My regulars are dressed uniformity
Guard have dress uniforms mostly
Reserves get sloppy and not up to regulations
Landwehr are all out of shape |
| robert piepenbrink | 07 Jan 2026 12:26 p.m. PST |
Again, I don't think there's a right or wrong way, but I think I'll have to take issue both with Yogi's implication that the scruffy look is a "simulation" and a well-turned out and uniform appearance is not, and with Flashman's statement that only Napoleonic French are picked on. And, I suppose, the general notion that all this is new. Taking the last first, I first saw patches painted on Napleonic miniatures in Nixon's first term. It may be more common now, but it's certainly not new. (It is certainly a lot easier to do in the era of plastic kits, but that's different.) Anyone thinking only Napoleonic French wear scruffy uniforms ought to look at miniatures of ACW Confederates some time. And about those ACW Confederates and "simulation." Yes, no question that if you were painting up the ANV for Antietam, the most historical approach would be dirty, ragged uniforms and considerable variety in hats, shoes and trousers. But it's also true that two of Longstreet's assaults--Chickamauga and the Wilderness--employed regiments fresh from receiving brand new uniforms. Were they "toy soldiers" then, but "simulations" at Second Manassas and Gettysburg? Or were soldiers of the black powder era sometimes well turned out on the battlefield and sometimes wearing worn and faded uniforms? Because in that case, "simulation" applies as well to one as to the other. I'm sorry. I've a veteran of the old "game vs simulation" debates, and in cold, wet weather my wounds still ache. Still no wrong way to play with (or paint) toy soldiers. |
| Tgerritsen | 07 Jan 2026 3:36 p.m. PST |
Meh, do what you want. They are your figures. Others' opinions are worth squat. |
 Condotta | 07 Jan 2026 5:16 p.m. PST |
My toy soldiers follow my commands. The night before battle, they take their coat out of their pack, clean and mend as needed, pipe clay to whiten all straps as appropriate, clean and polish their buttons, canteens, muskets and bayonets. Then, as they march out of their boxes and onto the tabletop, they are smartly dressed, clean and pressed, rank upon rank of beautiful toy soldiers. What a spectacle, well dressed and disciplined troops that know the rules and that no matter what their fate during battle, they'll die looking their best, or soar to glory as befits their outfits. Ha |
| Erzherzog Johann | 07 Jan 2026 7:06 p.m. PST |
As regards Ochoin's observation that more modern ranges guide us towards a more "campaign dress" look, I think there's some truth in that, but really only, from my observation, for certain armies. I haven't done extensive research but you don't need to to find campaign dress French and British. I don't recall ever seeing a range of Austrians in campaign dress (other than a few over the shoulder greatcoats) although they may exist. Myself, I've painted my Austrian and French troops pretty uniformly, with the occasional greatcoat colour variation in the French. When I finally paint Grenz, they'll be a mix – mostly in white (1809) but with a few individuals in the brown Hausmontur" because they were notoriously neglected. I've yet to find 15-18mm Grenzer in their cool red pixie cloaks so there'll be a bit of greenstuff coming out for a unit at some point. Likewise Landwehr will often just be in a greatcoat and hat. Insurrectio will have some properly uniformed, some in virtually civilian clothing. Cheers,
John |
| ochoin | 08 Jan 2026 2:15 p.m. PST |
That's a very fair qualification, and I think you're right that the "campaign dress effect" is uneven across armies. French and British are clearly over-represented in campaign-worn interpretations — both in figure ranges and painting guides — whereas Austrians tend to be sculpted and presented much more conservatively. Apart from the occasional greatcoat or covered shako, they're usually very regulation-looking, even in periods where we know shortages and neglect existed. That contrast is interesting in itself. It suggests that what we often think of as a historical judgement ("this army looked more worn") may partly be a market judgement: French and British sell in larger numbers, attract more veteran painters, and therefore get more sculpting variation and artistic licence. Austrians, by contrast, are often treated as the visual anchor of neatness and uniformity, regardless of theatre or year. And yes — red pixie cloaks in 15–18mm would be very hard to resist… |
|
paints "the best plastic sculpts I have seen so far..."
