12-10-2007, 04:21 PM
Ah, I edited my profile, but not the sig. Perhaps it works now?
Anyway, the depiction is not based primarily off the osprey, its based primarily off the vase painting. This just happens to be a case where our interpretation of the material is comparable to an osprey interpretation, which is not often the case.
As to the cavalry and the horse's armor, we've had an internal discussion that's gone on occasionally about how to properly depict different types of armored horse, and the full coat we have is not really fully pleasing to many of us on these Iberians. Shoot, a couple of guys are still wondering whether they're actually just mottled coats. Trajan's column, as I'm sure you know, depicts Sarmatian horsemen in full, form-fitting scale coverings, which is almost certainly either stylization or misunderstanding on the part of the artists. The vase has a similar depiction, so we can either assume that its either a similar case where the Sarmatian horseman's coat becomes a form-fitting "suit," or, as several of our members have been arguing, a sort of mail covering which would have been secured to the legs of the horse using leather straps, extending down from what may be more like an armored saddle blanket than a full suit of mail armor.
It also seems that you're questioning whether we're right to base a unit off a single artistic depiction. How are you reasoning your unease with that? The helmet and shield and other weapons can all be attested elsewhere easily enough, leaving one unparalleled aspect. Do we assume its an element of fantasy crafted in among "realistic" depiction? That doesn't really make sense as option 1 to me, but I'm happy to entertain other reasonings.
I guess the point kind of is, when crafting individually unique unit rosters for 21 factions and more than a dozen rebel "factions," we've often been forced to rely on sources that are either few in number or even slightly outside our time period. There are many types of troops in the ancient world that we want to see represented, and if we only represented those that were particularly well-attested, we'd have a pretty limited unit roster, especially outside of Greece and Italy. I think most of our members would also freely admit that we're often--certainly not always--on shaky ground with some units, especially those further afield from Rome and Greece, and so might defend our representation of a Marian legionary more ardently than a unit like the Iberian lancers.
EDIT: and as long as I'm on here, I might as well give a little promo: we have over 450 units, 21 playable factions, individual, beautiful generals, officers, and standard bearers for each faction, as well as possessing the most advanced scripting and traiting system in RTW. Oh, and oppida walls for the Gallic factions (Aedui, Casse, and Arverni), the Lusotann, and the Getai.
Anyway, the depiction is not based primarily off the osprey, its based primarily off the vase painting. This just happens to be a case where our interpretation of the material is comparable to an osprey interpretation, which is not often the case.
As to the cavalry and the horse's armor, we've had an internal discussion that's gone on occasionally about how to properly depict different types of armored horse, and the full coat we have is not really fully pleasing to many of us on these Iberians. Shoot, a couple of guys are still wondering whether they're actually just mottled coats. Trajan's column, as I'm sure you know, depicts Sarmatian horsemen in full, form-fitting scale coverings, which is almost certainly either stylization or misunderstanding on the part of the artists. The vase has a similar depiction, so we can either assume that its either a similar case where the Sarmatian horseman's coat becomes a form-fitting "suit," or, as several of our members have been arguing, a sort of mail covering which would have been secured to the legs of the horse using leather straps, extending down from what may be more like an armored saddle blanket than a full suit of mail armor.
It also seems that you're questioning whether we're right to base a unit off a single artistic depiction. How are you reasoning your unease with that? The helmet and shield and other weapons can all be attested elsewhere easily enough, leaving one unparalleled aspect. Do we assume its an element of fantasy crafted in among "realistic" depiction? That doesn't really make sense as option 1 to me, but I'm happy to entertain other reasonings.
I guess the point kind of is, when crafting individually unique unit rosters for 21 factions and more than a dozen rebel "factions," we've often been forced to rely on sources that are either few in number or even slightly outside our time period. There are many types of troops in the ancient world that we want to see represented, and if we only represented those that were particularly well-attested, we'd have a pretty limited unit roster, especially outside of Greece and Italy. I think most of our members would also freely admit that we're often--certainly not always--on shaky ground with some units, especially those further afield from Rome and Greece, and so might defend our representation of a Marian legionary more ardently than a unit like the Iberian lancers.
EDIT: and as long as I'm on here, I might as well give a little promo: we have over 450 units, 21 playable factions, individual, beautiful generals, officers, and standard bearers for each faction, as well as possessing the most advanced scripting and traiting system in RTW. Oh, and oppida walls for the Gallic factions (Aedui, Casse, and Arverni), the Lusotann, and the Getai.
Paul
USA
USA
