How historically accurate do you need to be

[Imperial Dave]

https://www.goonhammer.com/historicals-essentials-how-accurate-do-you-need-to-be/

Bring out your rivet counters....

[Ian61]

https://www.goonhammer.com/historicals-essentials-how-accurate-do-you-need-to-be/

Bring out your rivet counters....

I am very aware that my Armies lack real historical consistency as I play them over too long a time period. However five SoA conventions in and I am yet to meet this rivet counter chap at one. (However I do always think that every one elses armies look stunning) So I am with Mr. Goonhammer in still never having met one even outside this prestigious gathering. Indeed a first time attendee this year told me he was "blown away by how nice everybody was!" and we discussed the possible ambiguity considering the main topic was war !
However I take the point that there may yet be anxiety over this,even if statistically the anxiety is unnecessary.

[Imperial Dave]

I would never comment on anyone's painting historical or not.

Myself however. I am my own biggest critic!

[dwkay57]

Knowing and acknowledging one's own limited knowledge of and transgressions from history is the key to peaceful fulfilment when viewing one's own troops Grasshopper

Interesting that the focus was on painting accuracy rather than organisation and structure...

[Martin Smith]

Knowing and acknowledging one's own limited knowledge of and transgressions from history is the key to peaceful fulfilment when viewing one's own troops Grasshopper

..,and when you can feel the throw of six without lifting the dice cup, then may you leave the temple 🙃.

[Jim Webster]

Knowing and acknowledging one's own limited knowledge of and transgressions from history is the key to peaceful fulfilment when viewing one's own troops Grasshopper

Interesting that the focus was on painting accuracy rather than organisation and structure...

The term 'rivet counter' probably comes from the modelling world (might even have been model railways) so that might explain the focus.

[Erpingham]

The term 'rivet counter' probably comes from the modelling world (might even have been model railways) so that might explain the focus.

I have read this somewhere too.  It then transfered to other "rivetty" bits of equipment like armoured vehicles and planes. Even most of the uniform button counting equivalents come from large scale figure painting hobby.

It was a little ironic to focus so much on SAGA too. I something think there is a disconnect in criticising the accuracy of somebodies' figures but playing SAGA, which only loosely models its history.

With my medieval armies I must admit I tend towards the broadly accurate but generic.  Unlike some forum members who put me to shame with their historical researches, nearly all my men-at-arms have generic heraldry (though I follow the rules), for example.

[RichT]

Yes 'rivet counter' comes from model railways originally. As in, checking that the number of rivets on a model locomotive is accurate and complaining if it isn't.

Paint job (and model) accuracy of toy soldiers are equivalent to costume and prop accuracy in movies. Often filmmakers will go to some lengths to get the costumes right, but mess up the history. Even more often, they will mess up the costumes and the history. Wargamers seem to like (on the whole) to get their uniform and equipment details right, more or less, but take no interest in organisation and happily play Byzantines v. Aztec battles.

In the various movie and TV threads we have had (eg King and Conqueror) the general view seemed to be that the filmmakers might as well get the props and costumes right, if nothing else, as at least it will look good, even if it's still historical mush. I assume the same basic mindset applies to toy soldiers. Of course, there is accuracy and there is accuracy, and one man's rivet counting is the next man's might as well get it at least approximately right.

Personally I grind my teeth whenever I see a Macedonian phalanx equipped with shields with the wrong shield patterns on them, because the right shield patterns are really really well known, and it's so easy to get this right, it's almost more trouble doing it wrong. But then this is my thing, and I don't think it really matters at all in the grand scheme of things. What does?

[aligern]

We ought always to be careful that once you paint something it becomes hard fact and we operate in a milieu in which we might well be including together a green tunic with a helmet 200 years different in time from the source of the tunic. The supreme source is, of course, archaeological and dateable, but that is very very rare. A coloured item of clothing might well indicate what soldiers wore, or it might show only one unit and the rest may differ, but be lost to us, or it may be that the artist has to follow a convention that dictates what may be shown, or indeed it might be that he had lots of red paint to use up. It might also be a matter of the troops choosing to be shown in their whites, as parade order and really they wore natural wool from black to off white when fighting or digging.
Years ago there was what we might call the  age of discovery.  Largely led by Phil Barker, but not solely he, Ancient wargamers started to research into original sources, archaeology and experimentation.  An unfortunate consequence of this was a period of certainty. I do also  think that the national mood has changed , we are, certainly (in the UK) more open to looser interpretations of sources. We then knew  what Romans and Greeks and Gauls and Goths and Parthians and Chinese wore and wielded and the rivet counters had their moment.  In a mood  of rivet certainty I firmly told a friend that sixth century Roman infantry wore trousers with wide legs and that illustrations with tight trousers were of an earlier, Late Roman, period.  Nowadays I would accept that both designs were in fashion. However I would still be worried about wearing an Intercisa helmet in 550 CE.
Nowadays we are much more chilled and that's probably a good thing because our periods span so long that there is the possibility that fashion could change from a to b and back again in the period of many lists. The costume and colours are fine by me as long as you can see what weapons and armour the opposition have got, so that a man with a long spear has a spear and not a sling!
Roy

[Erpingham]

I suppose wargamers have conventions they follow. For example, I find Napoleonic armies in the dress uniforms visually spectacular. Purists can argue till the cows come home about button colours, facings and when such-and-such a regiment swapped its 1809 uniform for the pattern 1811. But armies didn't fight in dress uniforms and shortages meant non-regulation items were sourced for all sorts.

I think Richard's parallels with our film and TV portrayals discussions are apt.  In both a wargame and these programmes, we are talking about fiction with a historical theme. If we are recreating a specific battle, we could well want a higher standard of accuracy about who was there and what they were equipped with. Even then, we might make compromises.  Troops from other armies brought in to make up the numbers because we don't have enough of X troop type.

[Imperial Dave]

The good thing about the dark ages is you have quite a lot of laissez faire

[Erpingham]

The good thing about the dark ages is you have quite a lot of laissez faire

In the scales you game in, certainly. But details even then told people apart.  Hairstyles, ornaments, belt buckles.  I seem to recall a highly critical review in Slingshot of an Osprey on Germanic warriors by a young Guy Halsall which made this point .

[Keraunos]

The good thing about the dark ages is you have quite a lot of laissez faire

Indeed.  I am intending to use Picts for early Balts and Slavs - some of the figures have square or rectangular shields and the poses help distinguish them from the chaps I'm using for Viking hoi poloi.  10mm scale so not much detail on buckles or brooches

[Imperial Dave]

Small scales are your friend....

[Ian61]

Small scales are your friend....

Ah! an excuse I can stick with.