Osprey Men-at-Arms (some kilt errors)

[OC Richard]

I'm a fan of the Men-at-Arms series by Osprey Publishing.

Especially nice are the illustrations by Mike Chappell, which are artistically pleasing and accurate. The one inaccuracy, and one which occurs consistently, is his misunderstanding of how diced hosetops are made, and worn. (The diamonds aren't random, as Chappell shows, but quite regular, and are precisely worn by the kilted regiments.)

Here are the titles I have to hand which have the lovely Chappell illustrations (I've mentioned the kilted figures in parentheses)

British Battle Insignia 1939-45 (Seaforth Highlander)

Scottish Units In The World Wars (9th RS, BW Piper, 6th HLI, KOSB Piper, 8th BW, Argylls, 8th BW, 4th Gordons, 4th Camerons, 6th HLI, RSF Piper, Gordons Piper, BW Brigadier) (BTW the pages of illustrations contain numerous typographical errors such as the consistent misuse of apostrophes Argyll's, Gordon's, Seaforth's, Cameronian's; in addition a Cameron Highlander is listed as being in the "Cameronian's".)

British Battledress 1937-61 (2nd Seaforths)

British Territorial Units 1914-18 (Liverpool Scottish, 6th HLI, London Scottish)

The Canadian Army At War (73rd Battalion CEF, 15th Battalion CEF)

Also nice are the illustrations in

Wellington's Highlanders (illustrated by Bryan Fosten).

The British Army 1965-80 (illustrated by Angus McBride) : These illustrations are quite clear and accurate. The one kilted figure, a Gordon Highlander, has the dicing on his hose-tops incorrectly shown.

Once we leave these books we encounter far more errors:

Queen Victoria's Highlanders (illustrated by Gerry Embleton) : These illustrations are somewhat crude and aren't clear and contain various inaccuracies. Like Chappell he doesn't understand how diced hose-tops are made and worn. Also he sometimes shows dicing on headdress incorrectly. He consistently shows spats being far too tall.

Taking one plate (F) in detail, the cuffs on the BW officer's doublet are completely wrong, with the positions of the piping and lace reversed, and the sporran is wrong regarding both the cantle and tassels. The piper's sporran is wrong and he's shown wearing a Royal Stewart plaid with a Black Watch kilt! The hardware on the waistbelt and crossbelt are both incorrect. On plate G the Seaforth Highlanders' sporran is wrong, the tassels having brass cones (!) and the cantle missing its badge.

Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders (illustrations by Michael Roffe) : His illustrations are often so crude and sketchy-looking that it's hard to tell if they're accurate or not. However his illustrations are fairly accurate as regards the 1960s uniforms. He comes close to getting the hose-tops right. His illustrations have a consistent issue: the six tassels so often seen on the sporrans of the Argylls are shown splaying outward in defiance of gravity! Seems that he's never actually seen a sporran in person, and doesn't realize that the tassels hang down and obey the law of gravity.

On Plate F he suddenly forgot how to draw the red & white dicing as it appears on the Argylls' headdress, and he depicts the doublet flaps wrongly on Figure 1. Plate C has more bad dicing, the piper's doublet missing piping on the cuffs, and it's one of the worst attempts at depicting the Highland Bagpipe I've ever seen.

The Black Watch (illustrated by Michael Youens) : His illustrations are fairly clear. He depicts the spats far too tall. He doesn't understand how Feather Bonnets are made. The diced hose-tops are often fairly close to being right. He often shows the BW ORs' sporrans as having a metal rim and/or metal cones to the tassels (actually all leather) and shows the BW Officers' sporrans with incorrectly-shaped cantles and as having metal cones to the tassels.

Numerous flaws can be seen on two facing pages, plates F and G. The two pipers' and one officers' sporrans should all be the same, but are shown with three different cantle shapes, none of them quite right. The piper's sporran is shown with the tassels having white metal cones, the Pipe Major's sporran is shown with only two tassels! The piper is shown wearing what appears to be a Scots Guards pipers' cap badge, and his pipes have a Royal Stewart cover (should be Black Watch). The Pipe Major's doublet is entirely wrong, being shown red! I think I know where this error came from: there's a widely available c1910 postcard showing a BW Pipe Major; the black & white photo has been retouched with incorrect colours (quite common) and his Archer Green doublet has been painted over with red. On the other hand the Pipe Major's waistbelt and crossbelt hardware was been shown accurately.

Here is the incorrectly coloured vintage postcard from which Michael Youens must have got his wrong ideas about what a Black Watch Pipe Major looks like. Not only is the jacket painted red (it's actually Archer Green) but the kilt and plaid have been painted two different tartans (actually both should be Royal Stewart), the hose dicing is a mess, and why is the top of the kilt green?

[James Hood]

As another most sincere fan of the Osprey series, Men At arms, Elite, Weapons, Warriors, Aircraft Of The Aces, Fortress, Duel...

...(meaning; several thousand dollars have been spent on Osprey subjects over several decades)...

...OC Richard puts forth some exceptionally pertinent and well explained points.

Students of military history are well advised to seek out and study the Osprey inexpensive, short, softcover tomes, which arguably cover a wider array of military history subjects than any other publisher or range, ever.

However, buyer and student beware, regarding them as primers on a subject, not truly authoritative works in most instances, is personally recommended.

Consulting other sources and other artists can reveal a much larger picture of in this instance, Scottish soldiers. When at all possible, compare multiple pictures, drawings, photos of any uniform you are studying. Often the artist-at-the time was not really well versed in the subject, ergo a questionable depiction.

One thing to bear in mind; soldiers "then" and now are often quite different in size, mass, musculature. It has been said, the average infantryman in Wellington's army at Waterloo was five feet four (5' 4") and weighed 125 pounds.

Attending shows and museums where actual period militaria is displayed may leave you aghast at how small the (especially 19th century) soldiers were.

[OC Richard]

Attending shows and museums where actual period militaria is displayed may leave you aghast at how small the (especially 19th century) soldiers were.

Interesting that you should mention this, because I had always thought the same, and when I was out at a militaria show I met a fellow dressed in full ancient Roman legionnaire uniform, and noticing his height (more than a foot shorter than my 6'4") I commented that he appeared to be the proper size for a Roman soldier. He said that that was a common misconception; in fact a large number of Roman skeletons from Imperial times have been measured and these have revealed that the average Roman of those times is the same height as the average Roman of today.

I don't know if that's true! But this fellow seemed very knowledgeable and passionate about ancient Rome.

In my own family my grandfather was 6'4" and my great-great-grandfather's Civil War records show that he also was 6'4". My son is an inch or two shy of that but about his son (if he is to have one) who knows?

[Father Bill]

I remember taking my ten and eleven year olds on class trips to the museum and thinking how impossible it would be to cram them into the medieval suits of armour, so I would have to lean towards your original opinion.

[Hopper250]

OC Richard,

The Roman you met was correct. The average hight of men and women from 2-3000 years ago and today hasn't changed much. When looking at the armor that is on display in museums it is important to remember that most of that armor is doing what it has always done, been on display. Display armor would be made smaller and of lighter less expensive base material. Which allowed for ornate paterning and guilding. The average practical armor looked much like what Heath Ledger wore in "A Knights Tale." Solid, nothing fancy on it in any way, and lightly burnished.

[OC Richard]

About the height thing (which has become its own topic!) I was recently reading an anthropology book which said that when farming was invented there was a sudden decrease in height and life span and a deterioration in health in general: bad teeth, more disease, and so forth. The book went into much detail about the effect of people living in close quarters with each other and with farm animals, and how plagues became common (which were pretty much impossible in hunter-gatherer times when people were spread over a vast landscape in small isolated bands). Also new were famines, which were the result of depending on just a small handful of crops and animals, whereas typical hunter-gatherers ate over 100 different species regularly, meaning that if any one of them was wiped out by some new disease there would be little impact on the human diet. (Think the potato famine, where an entire nation was dependent on a single crop.)

[Father Bill]

OC Richard,

The Roman you met was correct. The average hight of men and women from 2-3000 years ago and today hasn't changed much. When looking at the armor that is on display in museums it is important to remember that most of that armor is doing what it has always done, been on display. Display armor would be made smaller and of lighter less expensive base material. Which allowed for ornate paterning and guilding. The average practical armor looked much like what Heath Ledger wore in "A Knights Tale." Solid, nothing fancy on it in any way, and lightly burnished.

Umm, not at the Royal Ontario Museum where the armour at that time was dented and labelled for who wore it. The mystery deepens!