There is a lot of twaddle talked about the ageing of the hobby - as if we are all shambling into our dotage - usually by blokes who have already decided that they are dotards with their bloody flasks, meat paste sandwiched and sodding cardigans !! ! Cobblers ! Not dead yet by a long chalk - still to much to do .
So with the new website building going on apace - and these things always take longer than you think they will I thought I'd show a couple of pics of a unit that is older than many in this hobby and differences
in historical information notwithstanding still looks just as tasty as it did since it first saw the light
of day sometime in the mid seventies. The unit was certainly present when "Battleground" was filmed in 1977and appears in the Osprey Wargames "Naseby" book of 1979 . so its pushing 40 and looks none the worse.
 |
| The Kings Lifeguard of Foote - 1643 or 1977 whichever you prefer. |
Its interesting how knowledge and perceptions change over the years .
 |
| Close up of the same unit - nice and shiny . |
 |
| The more modern unit ??? |
My "Other" Kings lifeguard look very different based upon the knowledge I had when I had them painted in the late 1990s- see the picture on the opening page of this blog . The more "modern" unit wears no armour- there are no known records of armour being issued to the Kings Infantry - and most of the men wear montero caps - which were issued and mostobviously there is hardly a buffcoat in sight- nor a musket rest .
So which is "right" ?
Quick answere both by the standards of the time they were made.
Agree with your thoughts on the nature of the hobby Andy. Far better idea reading Military history, and collecting and painting figures as a consequence :)
ReplyDeleteThe King's Regiments' comparison is interesting. The Peter Glider regiment is a reflection of whatever information was readily available, eg. G.Gush. And HOW stylishly that information was reflected in that regiment.
The more "up-to-date" KIng's Lifeguard was heavily influenced by more recent research. So glad to see NO buffcoats and little or no armour. The King's supporters paid the price for losing both London and Hull after all!!
Erm. So I like 'em both Andy!
Dave
Dave Exactly my points. Only by studying your chosen periods can you get an insight into what happened and therefore how to translate that onto the table. Nowadays the corporate dudes simply want you to slavishly buy into their veiw so they can sell you more twaddle.
DeleteAs an aside If I were to re-do the KLF I might give them more musket rests... up to date research of which I'm a minor part suggests they were still in use for longer than say Stuart Reid says .....
Agree with your sentiments.
DeleteInteresting thoughts on musket-rests. I think if I was focussing on an Edgehill to 1st Newbury Royalist army I think I would do the same. I also like the fact that it makes the musketeer look more "in-period" if that is the right description!
as a point of history in seems that much of the weaponry supplied to the armies by foriegn powers- mostly the Dutch but others too was a tad out of date by 1642 and comes supplied with rests- as did many of the home produced weapons.
Deletewhat happened to the rsts on campaign is a different matter but muskets were being supplied with rests