Official Osprey thread

[DukeofSerbia]

My friend bought Men-at-Arms – Hungary and The Fall of Eastern Europe 1000-1568.
I am mainly disappointed, especially about Serbian military history . Those are only parts of wrong descriptions:

Its small army developed under Byzantine and Hungarian influence…

Army was typical for Early Slavs, and influence from Byzantium and Hungary was irrelevant.

Swords were rare until late 14th century, by which time composite bows and crossbows were coming into use.

Ha ha ha. Composite bows in Serbia . Even I am greatest Serbian patriot I wouldn’t claim that ever! Also, crossbow and arbalest had never large use in Serbia.

Armour was almost unknown until the 12th century…

Which is not true. Nobility used leather armor.

Yet the Serbs did use mangonels in siege warfare…

This is not proven. Usage is proven for ballistae, catapults and trebuchets.

While the Bulgars were supported by numerous Mongol and Wallachian horse archers, the Serbian force apparently included 1 000 Spaniards, perhaps Catalan veterans of Byzantine service.

Not true, again . In Velbužd, King Stefan Dečanski brought 1 300 German mercenaries hired in Venice. The core was 300 knights.

I found more inaccuracies...

[DukeofSerbia]

Here’s another “brilliant” claims by David Nicolle in Men-at-Arms – Hungary and The Fall of Eastern Europe 1000-1568:

From the late 13th century increasing wealth from mining enabled Serbia’s rulers to recruit mercenaries, while the core of their army now consisted of armoured horse-archers equipped in Byzantine or elite Mongol style with composite bows, maces and horse-armour.

David forgot to write what type in mercenaries. King Stefan Milutin (1282-1321) had personal guard of 2 000 Cuman cavalrymen. He massively used Cumans as typical Turkopoles, but he also used Turks, Ossetinians (Alans), and Tatars (Mongols). After him usage of Turkopoles was abandoned.
But, what I underlined is much more interesting. Well, in late 13th century Serbian nobles fought as typical Western knights. Story about “armoured horse-archers equipped in Byzantine or elite Mongol style with composite bows, maces and horse-armour” is somebody’s imagination . Mace was popular among nobility, but never as sword. Composite bows I already commented yesterday.

Nevertheless, many light infantrymen still used javelins, although the crossbow became far the most important infantry weapon in the 14th century.

Crossbow never became the most important infantry weapon in the 14th century. Bow was always and stayed until end of medieval Serbia 1459. Crossbows were used, but never as bows. And here is the reason - in feudal Serbia there was a class of people called vlasi (vlachs) who were cattle breeders. They had obligation to provide certain number of soldiers and they were archers in Serbian armies.

General history of Serbia I won’t comment, because there are a lot of inaccuracies, but Osprey is mainly about military…

[cegorach]

Don't worry Duke !

I have read over 200 Osprey books and almost in every single one which at least mentions Poland there are mistakes in this matter.

Just to name few ones.

The constant mistakes in any descriptions of the war in 1939 with repeated stupidities such as about the Polish airforce destroyed in first few days, or one of most ridiculous in an Elite series book which mentions that SS 'Kempf' division took Modlin fortress with only 15 men lost (in the reality they appeared in last few days and blocked the Polish garrison from the north - the direction noone targeted).
The stubbornly repeated idea that the battle of Raszyn in 1809 was lost by the Poles, the constant fixation on calling Westerplatte position in Danzig in 1939 a fortress, the numerous remarks here and there of various degree of pure nonsense and pure Soviet/Russian propaganda in Russian Men-at-Arms books...

I still cannot believe that in Man-at-Arms nr. 13 ( Cossacks( Polish-Lithuanian Uprising of 1830-31 ( called often Polish-Russian war of 1831) is described as 'civil unrest' (page 20)...

Lovely, it is like calling battle at Tannenberg in 1410 'a noisy debate'.


The worst thing is that NEW books repeat old mistakes and add new ones.
I guess it is so bloody difficult to read something different than old, 'reliable' sources.

[Randarkmaan]

This is not proven. Usage is proven for ballistae, catapults and trebuchets.

Trebuchets are mangonels, counterweight mangonels to be exact, so it's sort of right.

Anyway there is a thing I've been wondering, is "The cult of the weermacht" widespread in the Osprey books? Because it seems likely if it is, because for a large number of military historian The Nazi German army is surrouned by a shroud of mystical awe and they talk enthusiastically about this and this 2nd Weermacht Panzerschlaffkampfgruppeabteilung mit edelweiss etc. I'm just wondering if this is true here as well.

[Condottiere]

Granted Men-at-Arms – Hungary and The Fall of Eastern Europe 1000-1568 covers a long and tumultuous period and trys to cover too many areas, which leads to generalizations and minor errors, but I didn't find anything egregious in the book.

Back in September, I wrote a review of Richard Brzezinski's Polish winged hussar: 1576-1775 - http://www.librarything.com/work/1318304

A great book that dispels several myths in a logical manner, backed up with accounts - not for nationalists or romanticists.

_______________________________________________

Expecting Crusader Castles in Cyprus, Greece and the Aegean 1191–1571 early in March. Should be an interesting read, though Nicolle detractors may want to look at something else.

I wonder what happened to the David Murphy's Osprey Warrior:Condottiere 1300-1500?

[Decker]

I am a World War Two buff(still have a longggg ways to go), I am new to the Osprey Publishing, and I am wondering if their reference books about the armies, equipment, formations, etc... is generally very accurate and are good for referencing and using for research? I haven't really read up on these subjects very much(which I should be doing) and I am wondering if Osprey is good to use for this sorta thing or is there another company that has better "info"?

[cegorach]

Back in September, I wrote a review of Richard Brzezinski's Polish winged hussar: 1576-1775 - http://www.librarything.com/work/1318304

A great book that dispels several myths in a logical manner, backed up with accounts - not for nationalists or romanticists.

I disagree. The book has numerous flaws.
The introduction is horrible and offending ( but puts the author in such a good mood and position hard to undermine without accusations for 'romantism and nationalism').He does so purpusefully - I have noticed this from his answers for criticism - below the acceptable level a respected historian should represent.


It is not completelly bad.
It adds something in two parts - the ones about camp servants and 'elear' i.e. 'chosen', volunteer force.

The rest is from good or avarage level to terrible - it represents outdated point of view of Jerzy Teodorczyk which was dominating among Polish historians untill most recent years - actually almost quotes Teodorczyk despite his errors found and criticised in more recent books.
Personally I was supricesed to read those in a work which (according to the author) dispells myths and challenges the beliefs of - who actually ? An avarage reader ? Someone who just heard about the cavalry and read nothing about it ? For sure someone who doesn't read in Polish so cannot compare the 'truths' written by the author with the supposedly flawed works of Polish historians who, ironically are quoted by Brzezinski in the very book.
EVERY SINGLE more detailed book about the same subject doesn't worship the unit as the author tries to claim.

That is unfortunate, because despite its mistakes other books of Mr.Brzezinski were - in my opinion - very good, however here it I can come to only one conclusion the author tries to demolish the legend, challenges the icon which unfortunatelly can only be done with FULL knowledge of the subject and the book shows lack of such.

You might be new to the historical period and clearly know nothing of other works about the Winged Hussars but please avoid Mr.Brzezinski's arrogance when dealing with it, OK ?

I felt disgusted to the extreme when I have read the introduction which can be commented the following way - 'read noone else than me - they are all nationalists and fanatics - besides you don't know Polish so you can never verify if I wrote the truth - so believe me or be damned.'

If you can handle more detailed discussion you can always use PMs, all right ?


P.S. I have bought 5 'Winged Hussars', fortunatelly I was able to withdraw from the deal after getting the first one and realising my mistake.
It would be the worst possible idea to give this to anyone with knowledge about the subject here - other works are cheaper and more datailed - you can get 3 better books for the price of this one, here in Poland.

[cegorach]

In a way it could be hard to face such a temptation...

Imagine yourself as the sole source for numerous english-language readers - they cannot challenge you, they have to believe you so half-complete selecton of sources or references will do the job.

People can lose their head with such possibilities open to explore...

Still cannot undersatand why the author wrote such offending introduction - he has open access to even most recent works of polish historians - I know that from his answers in zaglobastavern so why he didn't use them ?

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

Osprey are making up for a rather lacklustre year in the Ancient/Medieval genre with some great Nov/Dec titles lads!

First, a long-overdue Thermopylae campaign book. Richard Hook will probably illustrate this one.

Secondly, a 'Pirate of the Far East 941-1644AD' Warrior book. Interesting subject. Turnbull of course is writing it, don't know about the illustrator.

Thirdly, a 'Teutonic Knight 1190-1561' Warrior book. I've been waiting for this one for a while. Turner's illustrating, shame its not Angus.

But Angus is illustrating his third book of the year in the shape of 'The Army of Herod the Great', a MAA title. A bumper year for Angus certainly! Should be an interesting book about an overlooked subject. Unfortunately, a seemingly tie-in title on Fortresses of Judea has been delayed until 2008.

There's also a Japanese Castles in Korea 1592-98AD Fortress book coming out.

Also there's a Soldier of the Pharaoh: Middle Kingdom Egypt Warrior book coming out (probably to tie-in with the Hittite Warrior), a Castles of Henry VIII Fortress title, and a Castles of Edward I on its way.

I'm itching to see Angus' Byzantine Infantryman book - its an area I've learned a ton about and I have some scenes I'd really like to see him depict. Condottiere (Turner) should also be pretty good.

[DukeofSerbia]

Don't worry Duke !

I have read over 200 Osprey books and almost in every single one which at least mentions Poland there are mistakes in this matter.

I always say it can be and will be worse!

It would be the worst possible idea to give this to anyone with knowledge about the subject here – other works are cheaper and more datailed - you can get 3 better books for the price of this one, here in Poland.

I completely agree.
Btw, price of Osprey’s books varies in Serbia (read Belgrade, because you can buy them only in our capital) from ~7 to ~20 euros.

Granted Men-at-Arms – Hungary and The Fall of Eastern Europe 1000-1568 covers a long and tumultuous period and trys to cover too many areas, which leads to generalizations and minor errors, but I didn't find anything egregious in the book.

Not minor errors, huge! I just posted about Serbia (just military, not touching general history), and I didn’t touch Bulgaria, and other countries.
They wrote book in manner “Serbia was between Hungary and Byzantium – conclusion: they had similar warfare to them…”

[Incongruous]

Well Since I started collecting last feb, I have a wopping five!

Essential Histories.
The Hundred Years War (really puts everything into perspective)
Thirty Years war (my favourite book at the moment)

Then I have Arthur and the AS wars
Samurai
And Viking Saxons and Normans.

But, I have heard, through my spy network that me ole'man has just orderec for me a wopping ten books! I am salivating at the thought of smelling them, then stroking them, then fibally putting them all in a row on a bookshelf, and showing them off to hot chicks.

Yep I need

[cutepuppy]

But, I have heard, through my spy network that me ole'man has just orderec for me a wopping ten books! I am salivating at the thought of smelling them, then stroking them, then fibally putting them all in a row on a bookshelf, and showing them off to hot chicks.

Yep I need

Aaaahh, that's the spirit, young man.

[ShadesWolf]

Not a lot for me over the next few months

[Duke John]

Sorry BKB, I have to agree with Innocentius, Turner's work is better IMO, McBride cannot draw bows

Also, Graham Turner is a a lot better painter, both when it comes to talent and historical accuracy.

Graham Turner's work for the Armies of the Caliphates book is phenomenal, I might add.

You are losing ground, BKB!

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

You are losing ground, BKB!

You know me well enough by now DJ, my opinion is the only one that matters

[MeinPanzer]

But Angus is illustrating his third book of the year in the shape of 'The Army of Herod the Great', a MAA title. A bumper year for Angus certainly! Should be an interesting book about an overlooked subject. Unfortunately, a seemingly tie-in title on Fortresses of Judea has been delayed until 2008.

This is both good and bad news... as a huge fan of Angus, I'm really happy to see him illustrate another Hellenistic book, especially one on an Eastern subject. However, this will be another crappy-plate-and-pure-speculation-reconstruction book, like the recent Hun one. There is next to no info about the appearance or armament of Herod's army in either literary or archaeological sources. I would expect many a photograph of late Hellenistic Judaean fortification ruins in the text .

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

I though the Hun one was pretty terrible, and that's probably why it only had 6 plates.

[Dave1984]

This was on an e-group I subscribe to, and may be of interest to some on here.


"Gentlemen,

Bad News. I just had a call from Osprey, who told me that Angus McBride
has just passed away. Apparently the 76-year old artist suffered from a
major heart attack. He had recently moved from South Africa to Ireland
to be with his daughter, and was living and working from a cottage in
the grounds.

I worked with him on a series of four pirate books for Osprey, and
found him an extremely charming, witty and fun-loving gentleman. He was
by far the best and most respected military artist of his generation,
and we'll all feel his loss.

Angus Konstam
Edinburgh"

[Conqueror]

Oh this is very sad news

Rest in peace, Angus. There is life in your art that will never die

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

Terrible news. I'm gutted. The greatest military artist. None come close. I doubt I'll be getting anymore Osprey books.

None of the others come close. Richard hook, turner, no one. Jesus this is horrible. A sad day. Two more of his books to look forward to and maybe some unpublished images that hopefully will see the light of day. For me this is the death of Osprey. The books are shite now anyway.

[Innocentius]

Terrible news. I'm gutted. The greatest military artist. None come close. I doubt I'll be getting anymore Osprey books.

None of the gashes come close. Richard hook, turner, no one. Jesus this is horrible. A sad day. Two more of his books to look forward to and maybe some unpublished images that hopefully will see the light of day. This is the death of Osprey. The books are shite now anyway.

Of course It's sad news about Angus, and he was indeed a talented artist (RIP), but you are way overestimating him. Embleton, Turner and Hook have always outshone him in both realism and accuracy and especially Turner's artwork is simply amazing. Different from McBride, none of the above have included any historical errors (I must say I was quite dissapointed with the plates in Scandinavian Medieval Armies (2)).

Nonetheless, thank you for all the good books, Angus

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

Of course It's sad news about Angus, and he was indeed a talented artist (RIP), but you are way overestimating him. Embleton, Turner and Hook have always outshone him in both realism and accuracy and especially Turner's artwork is simply amazing. Different from McBride, none of the above have included any historical errors (I must say I was quite dissapointed with the plates in Scandinavian Medieval Armies (2)).

Nonetheless, thank you for all the good books, Angus

Your entitled to your opinion. Its wrong of course. As soon as you said Embleton I stopped reading.

[Innocentius]

Your entitled to your opinion. Its wrong of course. As soon as you said Embleton I stopped reading.

That's a very mature attitude... I believe you're just kidding me anyway so I'll disregard that and instead ask you to bring up an historical error drawn by Embleton (who is involved in re-enacting for what I know).
My "favourite" plate of McBride's is that of the Gotland "militia" in Scandinavian Medieval Armies (2), invluding a "Gotland rural nobleman" . Also there is his Halqa-archer in The Mamluk 1250-1517 wearing an insane amount of armour and clothes in the desert...

[edyzmedieval]

How awful. RIP Angus. You work will never die.

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

That's a very mature attitude... I believe you're just kidding me anyway so I'll disregard that and instead ask you to bring up an historical error drawn by Embleton (who is involved in re-enacting for what I know).
My "favourite" plate of McBride's is that of the Gotland "militia" in Scandinavian Medieval Armies (2), invluding a "Gotland rural nobleman" . Also there is his Halqa-archer in The Mamluk 1250-1517 wearing an insane amount of armour and clothes in the desert...

Embleton's greatest historical error was picking up a pencil in the first place. Angus may have made the odd historical error but I appreciated the mere quality and scene he captured rather than anal matters. The guy has just died and you're nitpicking his work, I think you're the one who needs to adopt a more mature attitude and show some respect.

[Innocentius]

Embleton's greatest historical error was picking up a pencil in the first place.

And you base that on what? You might prefer Angus's paintings over Embleton's but if you can't bring up a single argument as to why you loath all other Osprey painters but McBride...well...

Angus may have made the odd historical error but I appreciated the mere quality and scene he captured rather than anal matters. The guy has just died and you're nitpicking his work, I think you're the one who needs to adopt a more mature attitude and show some respect.

First I think that all of the artists I mentioned draw even better than McBride, but that's very much a personal opinion.
Second: Anal matters? I guess the fact that he included complete unrealistic "details" and invented a new form of nobility is going anal... Also I have all respect for McBride ans his artwork, but few things get me so upset as people acting truly immature (both "IRL" but even more so on the internet) and that got me into this argumentative frenzy. I'm sorry if I came across as disrespectful in your eyes, but on the other hand you've just discredited some of Osprey Publishing's finest artists.

[Geoffrey S]

Hello. Can you please drop this line of debate?

[Innocentius]

Hello. Can you please drop this line of debate?

Oh, I wish you could call this a debate...

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

Angus Mcbride may not have been the most accurate historically but he was the best artist for osprey and military art in general. On that point there is no debate needed.

If you can't see that I can't be arsed to carry on anything further with you

Whats really annoyed me here is that you know I like the guy and he has just died. You just came on here to belittle his work and you knew it would annoy me. You couldn't even pay the guy some respect in death. Without him Osprey would have died long ago.

Of course everyone has a right to their opinion but to believe the other artists in question show more life and depth than Mcbride's pieces is complete bollocks. If you asked any of the artists for osprey they would say the same thing.

Yes there are some mistakes in his work. The death of Julian in the Sassanid Cavalryman for example. Its obvious the legionaries are wearing antiquated armour but it doesn't detract from the beauty of the picture. Have we come to the point where we want people standing still with complete accuracy? I want life and depictions of famous scenes when looking at military art.

[Innocentius]

Angus Mcbride may not have been the most accurate historically but he was the best artist for osprey and military art in general. On that point there is no debate needed.

If you can't see that I can't be arsed to carry on anything further with you

So what you're basically saying is "If you don't agree with me then I won't discuss with you". That's just great. Besides, this contradicts with this:

Of course everyone has a right to their opinion

Yes there are some mistakes in his work. The death of Julian in the Sassanid Cavalryman for example. Its obvious the legionaries are wearing antiquated armour but it doesn't detract from the beauty of the picture. Have we come to the point where we want people standing still with complete accuracy? I want life and depictions of famous scenes when looking at military art.

Again, very much a matter of personal opinion. I read Osprey to (hopefully) learn a little, and I prefer everything being clean and displayed in an overlookable manner like in many of Turner's books (like in the English Medieval Knight books). Of course I appreciate the scenery in McBride's plates but if it was scenery I'd wanted I'd probably have bought a book containing artwork meant to be artwork, not artwork meant to display what arms and armour was used hundreds of years ago.

Whats really annoyed me here is that you know I like the guy and he has just died. You just came on here to belittle his work and you knew it would annoy me. You couldn't even pay the guy some respect in death. Without him Osprey would have died long ago.

A pretty much entirely false accusation. Like I've stated several times in this thread I have all respect for McBride and his contributions to Osprey, although my true favourties of his are his depiction of LotR orcs).

Again, I did not come here to belittle his work and I probably would've never brought it up if you hadn't acted so disrespectfully towards other illustrators whom I hold to be better than McBride. Try to see things from a different perspective.