Osprey Books?

[Elheru Aran]

I've picked up a few books by this publisher rather cheaply at a used-book store. My main question is, how good are they, notably in regard to historical accuracy and their artistic depictions? I like them, but some of the art looks slightly fanciful, so that gives me some doubt. If anybody has any, do share. I have three, no, four books on the Romans-- Soldiers of the Carthaginian Wars, Praetorian Guard, Roman Army Caesar to Trajan, and Late Roman Infantryman, then The Swiss at War. Pretty good stuff.

If this belongs in OT kindly move, thank you--

[Setzer]

I rather like the books, but regard them as Hoers d'ourves. They're nice, but really nothing more then a tiny morsel with regards to info. I'd look elsewhere if you have some serious research to do, but they can sometimes point you in the right direction with regards to sources.
Still, they do have some nice illustrations. My favorite artist is Angus McBride.

[Thanas]

Osprey and antiquity has not really been that good of a match.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

The T-72 book probably needs a bit of a rewrite.

[Frank Hipper]

With Osprey books, it depends on the author and the artist in question. I've heard blistering condemnation of inaccuracies, but I also know some authors of some WWI titles well, and some other titles' accuracy correlates to trusted academic research in cross-referencing the subject at hand.

You can't take them at face value on their own, that's my advice.

[Juubi Karakuchi]

I like the 'Essential Histories' series, but only for light reading or a very basic overview. I wouldn't actually cite one.

[Thanas]

To elaborate more on their failings when it comes to antiquity.

There was an inscription that showed a roman aquilifer of the Legio III parthica with a legionary eagle standard. On the legionary eagle, three bars were drawn.

They came to the conclusion that this meant that the legion fielded a live eagle being kept in a cage. Yeah, that is right. They did.

This idea is completely asinine. A) where do you get a live eagle from? b) eagles and cages do not mix c) no other roman legion ever fielded a live eagle. d) The eagle is the legionary symbol and represents the living spirit of it. If it dies, the legion dies. Now guess where the eagle was carried - on the frontline, exposed to enemy projectiles. Guess how much sense it makes to have a live eagle there.

Nevermind that they failed the obvious conclusion of the three bars. Either it was a protective cage for the bronze eagle to protect it from bad weather/projectiles, or the stone mason made a mistake, or the three bars simply represent the legionary number (Legio III Parthica) as it was an elite unit and he was not just a simple aquilifer, no he was the aquilifer of the legion III Parthica of the roman empire.

None of that would have mattered if they had not decided to cite an article in the AE for their claims. And guess what - the article does not say they fielded a live eagle. I know, I have checked. But here is the kicker - they did not differentiate from their own hackneyed conclusions, conclusions made by laymen and by what is written in the article. In short, reading the text of the book, one would easily get the impressions that the authors of the AE article, esteemed professionals, just said that there was a live eagle.

Such obvious misrepresentations and lies are very damaging to a professional's credibility as most people do not bother to check citations. Indeed, I have seen the article being cited as proof of a live eagle on the internet.

And this is why I hate Osprey.

[Lonestar]

I like Osprey books as light reading. A word of warning on quality: I have a book on German BBs during WW2, and they refer to the Schleswig-Holstein and Schlesien as Dreadnoughts. At no point is the prefix "pre" added to "dreadnought" when describing them.

[Frank Hipper]

I like Osprey books as light reading. A word of warning on quality: I have a book on German BBs during WW2, and they refer to the Schleswig-Holstein and Schlesien as Dreadnoughts. At no point is the prefix "pre" added to "dreadnought" when describing them.

That's unforgiveable in something with the pretense to being a "guide".

[Big Orange]

I do not see Osprey books as the be-all-end-all texts at all, but I like their artwork and some of the content. Some books are definitely better than others, for example The Fortifications of Gibralatar 1068-1945 was assembled by Darren FA and Clive Finlayson, native Gibraltians who work at the local museum, so a more reliable guide. Osprey books seem sufficient as preliminary texts I suppose, but not often definitive.

[Elfdart]

I'll buy almost anything with the late Angus McBride's artwork, so I have about twenty Osprey books.

I've found the ones written by David Nicolle to be pretty accurate, though if you factor out the maps, diagrams, color plates and photos, you have maybe a couple of magazine articles' worth of text. I also like the way Nicolle relies on more than the historical record, such as conducting actual tests on weapons.

On the other hand, I made the mistake of buying one about the Migration Era Germans and the writing was bad to embarrassing -and not just the content. The spelling and typographical errors and bizarre syntax made me think it was a bad translation from a foreign language at first.

[Thanas]

I'll buy almost anything with the late Angus McBride's artwork, so I have about twenty Osprey books.

His artwork, while looking good, should never be taken as any serious historical reproduction. I would never use it in a classroom or to underscore a thesis.

I've found the ones written by David Nicolle to be pretty accurate, though if you factor out the maps, diagrams, color plates and photos, you have maybe a couple of magazine articles' worth of text. I also like the way Nicolle relies on more than the historical record, such as conducting actual tests on weapons.

Experimental archeology is quite dicey as well.

[Elfdart]

His artwork, while looking good, should never be taken as any serious historical reproduction. I would never use it in a classroom or to underscore a thesis.

No restoration of any kind is going to be 100% accurate unless it's based on a rare, completely intact archaeological find. Some guesswork is necessary to fill in missing pieces, just as it is with paleontology.

Experimental archeology is quite dicey as well.

That would depend on the experiment, wouldn't it? Things like the shield tests Mike Loades showed on The Weapons That Made Britain are quite valuable, as are ballistics tests for projectile weapons. Most of the bullshit assertions made about mounted combat would have been easily debunked (or never made in the first place) by anyone with experience riding horses.

[Stark]

'Serious historical reproduction' != '100% accurate'. Turns out reproductions are more or less valid based on the validity and depth of research behind them, and not how pretty it looks.

[Elfdart]

'Serious historical reproduction' != '100% accurate'. Turns out reproductions are more or less valid based on the validity and depth of research behind them, and not how pretty it looks.

Really?

[Thanas]

His artwork, while looking good, should never be taken as any serious historical reproduction. I would never use it in a classroom or to underscore a thesis.

No restoration of any kind is going to be 100% accurate unless it's based on a rare, completely intact archaeological find. Some guesswork is necessary to fill in missing pieces, just as it is with paleontology.

Stark got it right. Need I really pull out the famous living eagle reconstruction which yes, he did make? It is right on the freaking cover of his roman legionaries. There is a difference between methods used in good museums and difference between what Osprey peddles.

Their medieval books are as worse. Hey, let's just mix this chainmail we found in Tuscany with this helmet we found in Sicilly to create our medieval italian warrior (tm).

Experimental archeology is quite dicey as well.

That would depend on the experiment, wouldn't it? Things like the shield tests Mike Loades showed on The Weapons That Made Britain are quite valuable, as are ballistics tests for projectile weapons. Most of the bullshit assertions made about mounted combat would have been easily debunked (or never made in the first place) by anyone with experience riding horses.

Sorry, but anything in which the qualifications for the shield maker were revealed to be "I have made shields for fifteen years." is not really that much of something I would like to base my academic reputation on. They are interesting tidbits, but not that much of a help.

[Elfdart]

Stark got it right. Need I really pull out the famous living eagle reconstruction which yes, he did make? It is right on the freaking cover of his roman legionaries.

I haven't read the book, but I have seen the cover, with the illustration. According to the author, Ross Cowan:

If I had the chance, I'd make changes to all of the plates in my three Osprey books, the problem being my designs rather than the artists' work. However, I think that plate F of Roman Legionary turned out rather well (Teutoburg scene) - and Angus McBride created that from what was a fairly vague outline. I also like plate F of Imperial Roman Legionary (II Parthica vs. Praetorians in AD 218), though I will concede that I should have specified helmets for the soldiers, the shield blazons are too speculative and I dislike the way Angus McBride put II Parthica's eagle in what looks like an over-sized budgie cage, rather than the type of cage depicted on the tombstone of Felsonius Verus.

[boldface mine]

Two things:

1) Since the legion in question is II Parthica and not III Parthica, so much for your story about the three bars representing the number III.

2) If the idea of carrying a live eagle in a cage is based on this tombstone, then what is so far-fetched about the author's theory?

There is a difference between methods used in good museums and difference between what Osprey peddles.

That's funny, since (a) the clothes, weapons and armor in many of the illustrations are copied from museum exhibits and (b) museums, including the "good" ones, frequently do shoddy work, such as the Royal Armoury's rampant katana-wanking. Maybe you could give a few examples of how a museum restoration is so much better.

Their medieval books are as worse. Hey, let's just mix this chainmail we found in Tuscany with this helmet we found in Sicilly to create our medieval italian warrior (tm).

What's wrong with that? Was the chainmail from Sicily radically different from the maille worn in Tuscany? Were the helmets that much different? If the book is about Italian weapons and armor in general, it would include Tuscany and Sicily. Maybe even Naples.

Sorry, but anything in which the qualifications for the shield maker were revealed to be "I have made shields for fifteen years." is not really that much of something I would like to base my academic reputation on. They are interesting tidbits, but not that much of a help.

In other words, you didn't bother watching more than 20 seconds before shutting it off. If you had watched the rest you would have learned that the man making the shields copied the materials (rawhide, lime wood) and techniques described in contemporary sources, including the recipe for the glue. Congratulations.

[Thanas]

Stark got it right. Need I really pull out the famous living eagle reconstruction which yes, he did make? It is right on the freaking cover of his roman legionaries.

I haven't read the book,

...but you feel qualified to comment on it regardless.

but I have seen the cover, with the illustration. According to the author, Ross Cowan:

If I had the chance, I'd make changes to all of the plates in my three Osprey books, the problem being my designs rather than the artists' work. However, I think that plate F of Roman Legionary turned out rather well (Teutoburg scene) - and Angus McBride created that from what was a fairly vague outline. I also like plate F of Imperial Roman Legionary (II Parthica vs. Praetorians in AD 218), though I will concede that I should have specified helmets for the soldiers, the shield blazons are too speculative and I dislike the way Angus McBride put II Parthica's eagle in what looks like an over-sized budgie cage, rather than the type of cage depicted on the tombstone of Felsonius Verus.

[boldface mine]

Two things:

1) Since the legion in question is II Parthica and not III Parthica, so much for your story about the three bars representing the number III.

Yes, I got the legionary numbers wrong. By all means, use this to discount the rest of my arguments. Furthermore, you use the fact that the author was unhappy with it as proof that Osprey should be taken seriously?

2) If the idea of carrying a live eagle in a cage is based on this tombstone, then what is so far-fetched about the author's theory?

Because if you would actually care to do some serious research instead of resorting to googlebooks and dig up the L'Année Epigraphique and the other journal in which it was published (and not used out of frame like in the Osprey books), you would realize that not once did the authors of the original article ever advance the theory of it being a live eagle.

As for what is far fetched about it, read the rest of my previous post which you decided to ignore in favor of harping on the fact that I got the legio II parthica mixed up with the legio III parthica.

There is a difference between methods used in good museums and difference between what Osprey peddles.

That's funny, since (a) the clothes, weapons and armor in many of the illustrations are copied from museum exhibits

Show me proof of wherever you have seen a reconstruction of a live eagle and I'll gladly concede the point.

and (b) museums, including the "good" ones, frequently do shoddy work, such as the Royal Armoury's rampant katana-wanking. Maybe you could give a few examples of how a museum restoration is so much better.

Gladly. Go visit the Römermuseum in Xanten, they do an outstanding job.

Their medieval books are as worse. Hey, let's just mix this chainmail we found in Tuscany with this helmet we found in Sicilly to create our medieval italian warrior (tm).

What's wrong with that? Was the chainmail from Sicily radically different from the maille worn in Tuscany? Were the helmets that much different? If the book is about Italian weapons and armor in general, it would include Tuscany and Sicily. Maybe even Naples.

And your proof for sicilian armourers working for Tuscany is where, exactly? You can't just mix things together. You actually have to provide positive proof of either a) standards being the same in all of Italy or b) a source saying that they traded with each other. Now, admittedly, there is a high possibility. But you just do not go with gut feelings and possibilities.

Sorry, but anything in which the qualifications for the shield maker were revealed to be "I have made shields for fifteen years." is not really that much of something I would like to base my academic reputation on. They are interesting tidbits, but not that much of a help.

In other words, you didn't bother watching more than 20 seconds before shutting it off. If you had watched the rest you would have learned that the man making the shields copied the materials (rawhide, lime wood) and techniques described in contemporary sources, including the recipe for the glue. Congratulations.

I watched the whole thing, actually, and I wouldn't use it. Because there is no way of me to verify their results, nor are they published in peer reviewed journals. I don't know if they cut corners (like using modern tools), I don't know if they cut the wood using ancient methods, I don't know how they got the rawhide etc. Real experimental archeology is supposed to work in a different manner, this is sensationalistic stuff.

[Elfdart]

I haven't read the book,

...but you feel qualified to comment on it regardless.

Why not? You read it and got worked into a lather over the cover illustration, accused the author and artist of lying AND advanced a theory based on the false assumption that it's the #3 legion instead of the #2. Apparently the bar isn't set very high when it comes to criticizing this sort of book.

Yes, I got the legionary numbers wrong. By all means, use this to discount the rest of my arguments.

Project much? You slammed not only this book but the entire publishing house based in large part on your error.

Furthermore, you use the fact that the author was unhappy with it as proof that Osprey should be taken seriously?

No, I used it to point that your assertion (that the author and illustrator lied) is baseless. I realize this may come as a shock for you, but it's common for illustrators in almost every genre to misinterpret what the author describes (this can be the authors' fault as well) or to simply alter or ignore the writers for artistic reasons, and I'm not just referring to artistic license. In many cases, trying to correct an error would mean scrapping or ruining the entire painting. There's a reason Yale hasn't altered or taken down Zallinger's Age of Reptiles mural, even though there are many obvious mistakes.

2) If the idea of carrying a live eagle in a cage is based on this tombstone, then what is so far-fetched about the author's theory?

Because if you would actually care to do some serious research instead of resorting to googlebooks

I apologize for citing evidence from a web page and using it in a web forum. I'm so ashamed.

and dig up the L'Année Epigraphique and the other journal in which it was published (and not used out of frame like in the Osprey books), you would realize that not once did the authors of the original article ever advance the theory of it being a live eagle.

It's not my job to search for evidence to back up your claims.

As for what is far fetched about it, read the rest of my previous post which you decided to ignore in favor of harping on the fact that I got the legio II parthica mixed up with the legio III parthica.

I mentioned your error ONCE in that post. If you're so embarrassed about your mistake and your tangent, maybe you should cut others some slack on the subject.

Gladly. Go visit the Römermuseum in Xanten, they do an outstanding job.

Maybe I will someday.

And your proof for sicilian armourers working for Tuscany is where, exactly?

I never said they did. Nice strawman.

You can't just mix things together. You actually have to provide positive proof of either a) standards being the same in all of Italy or b) a source saying that they traded with each other. Now, admittedly, there is a high possibility. But you just do not go with gut feelings and possibilities.

The purpose of the Osprey books is to give modelers and tabletop wargamers a good idea of what people may have looked like when wearing certain clothes and/or equipment. Since space is limited and it's not practical to have color plates for every item individually, it is necessary to have a person wearing a helmet from one part of Italy and a chainmail byrnie from another region in the same painting. As long as it's labeled as such, I see no problem.

I watched the whole thing, actually, and I wouldn't use it.

Use it for what?

Because there is no way of me to verify their results,

If you doubt what you saw you could always copy what they did in the video and try it for yourself.

nor are they published in peer reviewed journals.

Why would a TV show be published at all -let alone in a peer reviewed journal? Would you like a video with footnotes?

I don't know if they cut corners (like using modern tools), I don't know if they cut the wood using ancient methods,

Does it matter? The wood is still cut, isn't it? This is going to give anal retentiveness a bad reputation. I'm sure the host and the guy making the shield used modern transportation when they met for the show.

Next you'll complain about the use of cameras for the show, since those weren't around in Anglo-Saxon times, either.

I don't know how they got the rawhide etc.

Probably from a cow.

Real experimental archeology is supposed to work in a different manner, this is sensationalistic stuff.

Doesn't mean it's not accurate. Or do you think the properties of cheese, vinegar, rawhide and limewood have changed all that much in the last thousand years?

[Thanas]

I haven't read the book,

...but you feel qualified to comment on it regardless.

Why not? You read it and got worked into a lather over the cover illustration, accused the author and artist of lying AND advanced a theory based on the false assumption that it's the #3 legion instead of the #2. Apparently the bar isn't set very high when it comes to criticizing this sort of book.

Let me spell it out for you once more. The books talk about the II Parthica. The original inscription talks about the II parthica. Every single article discussing the inscription disccuses the legio II parthica. In my post I made an error and labelled it the III parthica by mistake. The rest of the criticism, except my mistake with the number of bars, is still accurate.

Namely that at no other times the romans used live eagles, that live eagles would be contradictory to the roman religion/purpose of the eagle, that a live eagle would be very impractical, that it would be at tremendous risk and that the originial authors who wrote about the inscriptions did not ever identify it as a live eagle.

No, I used it to point that your assertion (that the author and illustrator lied) is baseless. I realize this may come as a shock for you, but it's common for illustrators in almost every genre to misinterpret what the author describes (this can be the authors' fault as well) or to simply alter or ignore the writers for artistic reasons, and I'm not just referring to artistic license.

Almost every genre....does include history how, exactly?

and dig up the L'Année Epigraphique and the other journal in which it was published (and not used out of frame like in the Osprey books), you would realize that not once did the authors of the original article ever advance the theory of it being a live eagle.

It's not my job to search for evidence to back up your claims.

You made the claim that their work was correct. I countered with the assertion that it wasn't. You are the one making a positive claim, provide the evidence for it.

I mentioned your error ONCE in that post. If you're so embarrassed about your mistake and your tangent, maybe you should cut others some slack on the subject.

Because me making a mistake is the same as paid writers/illustrators to make a mistake? Notice how in your quote not once does he address whether it is a live eagle or not, thus making your entire quote useless to argue against my point.

You can't just mix things together. You actually have to provide positive proof of either a) standards being the same in all of Italy or b) a source saying that they traded with each other. Now, admittedly, there is a high possibility. But you just do not go with gut feelings and possibilities.

The purpose of the Osprey books is to give modelers and tabletop wargamers a good idea of what people may have looked like when wearing certain clothes and/or equipment. Since space is limited and it's not practical to have color plates for every item individually, it is necessary to have a person wearing a helmet from one part of Italy and a chainmail byrnie from another region in the same painting. As long as it's labeled as such, I see no problem.

So...your point against me cautioning against the use of them in the field of history and chargin that they make mistakes is....that their purpose is not to provide an accurate description in the first place? Well done, I say.

Because there is no way of me to verify their results,

If you doubt what you saw you could always copy what they did in the video and try it for yourself.

It is not upon me to show how their methods are reliable. It is upon them to show it. Otherwise I might just as well do the whole thing for myself and disregard their findings.

nor are they published in peer reviewed journals.

Why would a TV show be published at all -let alone in a peer reviewed journal? Would you like a video with footnotes?

I don't give anything about the entertainment value. I am looking only for one thing - scientific accuracy. And you don't get that without a peer review. You also do not get to use evidence in a scientific debate unless you can verify it. Hence, that entire thing is completely useless.

I don't know if they cut corners (like using modern tools), I don't know if they cut the wood using ancient methods,

Does it matter? The wood is still cut, isn't it? This is going to give anal retentiveness a bad reputation. I'm sure the host and the guy making the shield used modern transportation when they met for the show.

Next you'll complain about the use of cameras for the show, since those weren't around in Anglo-Saxon times, either.

Modern transportation does not have an impact upon the composition of the wood. Using modern tools or not does.

Real experimental archeology is supposed to work in a different manner, this is sensationalistic stuff.

Doesn't mean it's not accurate. Or do you think the properties of cheese, vinegar, rawhide and limewood have changed all that much in the last thousand years?

No, but the tools you use did. For example, you can cut more accurately using modern tools. Using modern forging techniques you can also get far more stronger iron for the shield boss. Heck, even using modern iron would be a tremendous boost.

So yes, these things are important.

[Serafina]

No, but the tools you use did. For example, you can cut more accurately using modern tools. Using modern forging techniques you can also get far more stronger iron for the shield boss. Heck, even using modern iron would be a tremendous boost.

So yes, these things are important.

Oh, yes, they do!

I have actually tried swords which were made by both original (medieval) techniques and modern ones, both made with similar expertise, but different material and techniques. Note that this does not mean that the modern sword did use fancy composite materials - it was steel, but modern high-quality steel.

Visually, they looked nearly identical, but the balance of the modern ones was clearly superior - which made a HUGE difference.
There is a reason why serious reenactment groups (in contrast to people who practice swordmanship for show) insist that their weapons are crafted with original tools and materials.

While this is (mostly) ancetdotal "evidence", you can hardly argue that there is no difference between pre-modern and modern materials, tools and techniques.

[K. A. Pital]

I realize this may come as a shock for you, but it's common for illustrators in almost every genre to misinterpret what the author describes (this can be the authors' fault as well) or to simply alter or ignore the writers for artistic reasons, and I'm not just referring to artistic license.

Not in what is meant to be a historic restoration of the precise look of a uniform, vehicle, object or person, however. That would be my final judgement on the illustration issue, so I'd advise not to press this point any further.

"Artistic license" has no place in what is meant to be a historic visual guide if that guide is to ever be taken seriously. In a book of battleship projects you can't misplace the towers. The same applies to military uniforms. Such errors would never ever be considered "artistic license" in any form and instead simply labelled as "errors" as they should be. If the errors are systematic or too glaring, as Thanas considers, then the accuracy of the entire series of guides is doubtful

[Elfdart]

Almost every genre....does include history how, exactly?

It does when the book includes an author and an illustrator.

You made the claim that their work was correct.

I claimed that as far as I could tell, the books written by David Nicolle were accurate, though the text was thin:

I've found the ones written by David Nicolle to be pretty accurate, though if you factor out the maps, diagrams, color plates and photos, you have maybe a couple of magazine articles' worth of text.

Granted I don't have access to peer review journals, but from the books on history and archeology I have read the only "error" I found was Nicolle's reference to Bishop Odo using a flanged mace, which more modern historians claim was a myth (they think he wielded a wooden club as a symbol of office) -not exactly earth-shattering stuff given that Nicolle's book (The Normans) was published more than 20 years ago.

I countered with the assertion that it wasn't.

Which was a strawman argument, not one I made.

You are the one making a positive claim, provide the evidence for it.

Are you going to argue a point I actually made or is this going to be a series of strawmen?

Because me making a mistake is the same as paid writers/illustrators to make a mistake?

You set the standard; you shouldn't whine when it's applied to you.

Notice how in your quote not once does he address whether it is a live eagle or not, thus making your entire quote useless to argue against my point.

Bullshit. You claim the author lied about the contents of an AE article. You also claim the picture of the tombstone from the book I cited is somehow altered from the original. Yet you offer no evidence for these claims other than your own say-so.

So...your point against me cautioning against the use of them in the field of history and chargin that they make mistakes is....that their purpose is not to provide an accurate description in the first place? Well done, I say.

Yet another strawman. Are you shooting for a record or something? My point is that they only have so much space in the books and it would be impractical to do a single illustration for each item. So they have to cut corners and have one or two "models" wearing multiple items. I guess you think mannequins are bullshit, too.

No, but the tools you use did. For example, you can cut more accurately using modern tools. Using modern forging techniques you can also get far more stronger iron for the shield boss. Heck, even using modern iron would be a tremendous boost.

So yes, these things are important.

Since the arrows and axes weren't aimed at the boss in the tests, but at the wood, the strength of the boss is irrelevant as far as the tests are concerned. As far as the wood is concerned, please show evidence that a thin wooden plank cut by a Saxon-era axe is going to be substantially different from one cut with an axe bought from the local hardware store. Or substantially different from a set of pre-cut boards from the lumber yard.

I realize this may come as a shock for you, but it's common for illustrators in almost every genre to misinterpret what the author describes (this can be the authors' fault as well) or to simply alter or ignore the writers for artistic reasons, and I'm not just referring to artistic license.

Not in what is meant to be a historic restoration of the precise look of a uniform, vehicle, object or person, however. That would be my final judgement on the illustration issue, so I'd advise not to press this point any further.

As I pointed out before, the chances of actually doing a "precise" restoration are practically zero. Even with a literate society like ancient Rome with large amounts of artifacts and contemporary artwork, the experts still argue about how the lorica segmentata and the later lamellar armors were fastened and worn.

Getting a precise restoration of a person is also impossible without some speculation and guesswork, as the Meet the Ancestors show proved time and again when they brought in forensics experts who specialized in restoring human remains for the police. Things like weight, eye color, complexion, hair color and style, and in many cases, clothing were at best educated guesses because such things are seldom preserved in archaeological finds.

"Artistic license" has no place in what is meant to be a historic visual guide if that guide is to ever be taken seriously. In a book of battleship projects you can't misplace the towers. The same applies to military uniforms.

Apples and oranges. We have photographs of battleships, as well as blueprints. So the amount of guesswork and speculation over what one would look like would be minuscule. We don't have photographs of (for example) Hunnish horsebowmen, so a certain amount of mixing and matching from different Hun grave goods, depictions in contemporary artwork and written descriptions would be mandatory unless you want illustrations to be nothing more than a silhouette with (for example) a bronze helmet in one picture, and a silhouette with a mail byrnie in another, and a brooch in another...

That defeats the whole purpose of giving the reader an idea of what a person might have looked like wearing one or more of these items. On top of that, in certain periods in history there were no uniforms, and little if any standardized equipment.

Such errors would never ever be considered "artistic license" in any form and instead simply labelled as "errors" as they should be. If the errors are systematic or too glaring, as Thanas considers, then the accuracy of the entire series of guides is doubtful

When I refer to artistic license, I don't mean it's OK for the illustrator to pull things out of his ass with no basis in reality. I mean the fact that a painting is not a photograph and therefore the images are going to be skewed because of the artist's style and the limitations imposed on him or her. For example, there isn't much room for a panoramic view of a battlefield, so you end up with a color plate with several men in rather unnatural poses, wearing an assortment of things that may or may not have been worn at the same time - AND all in closeup. As long as these items are clearly labeled ("helmet from late 9th century Tuscan tomb") there shouldn't be a problem.

[ray245]

However, you points did nothing to address why was it possible for Museums to do a better job in terms of reconstructing the armours worn by the ancient armies than the Osprey books.

It's like you are arguing that just because reconstructing ancient armours and all that is hard, we need to give leeways to the artist and the authors, never mind the fact that other people are able to do a much better than them.

This is fucking idiotic if you ask me.

Yet another strawman. Are you shooting for a record or something? My point is that they only have so much space in the books and it would be impractical to do a single illustration for each item. So they have to cut corners and have one or two "models" wearing multiple items. I guess you think mannequins are bullshit, too.

Are you dumb or what? Since when is cutting corners ever justifiable in any books that seeks to provide historical information to the general public at large?

It's like saying History books should be allowed to cut out chunks of details in regards to the Historical period they are addressing just because it will make the book too thick.

[K. A. Pital]

As I pointed out before, the chances of actually doing a "precise" restoration are practically zero. Even with a literate society like ancient Rome with large amounts of artifacts and contemporary artwork, the experts still argue about how the lorica segmentata and the later lamellar armors were fastened and worn.

Getting a precise restoration of a person is also impossible without some speculation and guesswork, as the Meet the Ancestors show proved time and again when they brought in forensics experts who specialized in restoring human remains for the police. Things like weight, eye color, complexion, hair color and style, and in many cases, clothing were at best educated guesses because such things are seldom preserved in archaeological finds.

That is a valid point, but this is left up to the writer of technical documentation to speculate, not the artist. He should do his job without invoking any speculation that he has no authority to make. At least I thought so. Perhaps the incorrect specifications given by the writer were the reason of an artists' errors. Still, the errors Thanas details look pretty glaring.

When I refer to artistic license, I don't mean it's OK for the illustrator to pull things out of his ass with no basis in reality.

Yeah, but isn't it exactly a case where the artist pulled things out of his ass ("speculated") without any basis in the writer's or whoever was providing the technical information, instructions?

I mean the fact that a painting is not a photograph and therefore the images are going to be skewed because of the artist's style and the limitations imposed on him or her. For example, there isn't much room for a panoramic view of a battlefield, so you end up with a color plate with several men in rather unnatural poses, wearing an assortment of things that may or may not have been worn at the same time - AND all in closeup. As long as these items are clearly labeled ("helmet from late 9th century Tuscan tomb") there shouldn't be a problem.

That is correct. Things such as style, etc. are the artists' discretion. However as I gather the debate centers around a real error w/ the eagle, which was never meant to be a live eagle or something? That is just a technical error and has no relevance to the issues of artistic license such as style, hairstyle, skin color and other minutiae that the (well-informed) artist picks to the best of his or her knowledge...