Whats wrong with Osprey?

[M. Demetrius]

I agree with your view, Salvanius. Some, if not many people, for all sorts of reasons don't/can't do the massive research it would take to start from absolute zero information, and compile enough data (without resorting to RAT or Osprey, etc) to construct a 1st Century AD Legionary kit (for example). It would take years. That's probably why Hollywood doesn't bother to get it right, or hire people more often who have more accurate information: they have a schedule tied to dollars per minute.) I wish they'd do the latter, though, that could save them money, but it suppose they're thinking of us on RAT. After all, if they actually got it right all the time, we'd have nothing to talk about. :lol:

I have had some good times looking over various periods of history, and always admire the great photos, illustrations and elucidating paragraphs. I'm a fan, too. :!:

[A_Volpe]

Osprey books are like "Gateway" Books - As Graham Sumner said, you are dealing with a specific format of their publication - these are small-sized (ie 60 pages) books to provide an overall, general survey of the particular subject the author and illustrator are looking at. If you look at the Bibliography, most of the titles are loaded with lots of primary, secondary, tertiary sources as well as citing several journal papers, et cetera. These authors and illustrators are doing their homework and doing it well. They are conveying the most detailed information as best they can with what they have available, in very limited space and format.

One should not expect to be getting a Doctoral dissertation in a 60 page hobby book.

Some people seem to be looking at Ancient period subjects in these books and expecting 100% fact and accuracy. That is never going to happen. There is still so much we are learning about the (Romans), and who knows what the next year's worth of archaeological digging and research will turn up. I have heard [rumors] on here that there are hundreds of artifacts that have yet to be cataloged by institutions, nevermind published for the general public nor academia to read. And at that end, what if some artifacts that we think we "know" are this and that have been mislabeled or improperly identified? Example: there is a question now about the beloved "Loculus" leather satchel that many of us use - based on Trajan's Column and I believe some fragments have been found? Either way, There is a counter-argument that suggests the satchel may instead have been a water skein!

Another example, my friend and commilto, Randi Richert (P. Clodius Secundus), has been eyeball deep in his own independent research on the Onager and how siege engines were constructed. He's very adamant he's discovered an entirely different method at how these machines operated and were constructed. He's faced I think some unwarranted criticism and outcry on his theories and research questioning the "status quo". Anyway, Most of what we do in this Roman Reenacting hobby is based on Theories, backed by research and the tiny little bits or artifacts we are lucky to find.
(which on a side note I think is the most astounding aspect of what we do, it's amazing we even find this stuff)

The same questioning of publications came out with Adrian Goldsworthy's "The Complete Roman Army", some people misunderstood the title and thought it was the End All tome of Roman research, but really, the title "The Complete" is a brand series. His book I think is an excellent "overall" source, with a huge bibliography for the reader to cross-reference. Even the classic "Greece and Rome at War" by Peter Connolly has some information that has been re-researched and re-written, "upgraded" in it's accuracy. That book was published in the 1980's - we've found a lot of new stuff since then. This is the same deal with Osprey books.

I personally love Osprey books, but I also know reading them they are going through a huge subject in very short order. These books, and no single book, should be considered an "end all" authority on a subject. There is also the personal theories and beliefs of the author(s) that one must consider with an open mind and willingness to take into consideration what is being presented.

[Salvianus]

Now i think about it, perhaps the main problems arise from folk citing them as references. In some cases, like Graham's, they do represent original research by someone who is uniquely placed on the subject in the manner of a monograph (does that word call Sherlock Holmes irresistibly to mind for you too?) but as they generally summarise from other litreature, and often simplify due to the constraints of space, it is usually better to cite their more academic sources.

[Nathan Ross]

original research by someone who is uniquely placed on the subject in the manner of a monograph (does that word call Sherlock Holmes irresistibly to mind for you too?)

Yeah, some of the more specialised Osprey titles do sound a bit Holmesian: 'Waffen SS Boot Polish 1938-45', or the recent 'Clay Pipes of the British Line Regiments 1839-90'.

I'd agree that the only possible problem with the books, as others above have said, is that sometimes they're treated as gospels by those unwilling or unable to read further into the subject. This can be misleading, especially in areas like ancient history where all 'facts' are open to interpretation or revision. The Osprey books present snapshots of the best available research at the particular time of publication. Many of them are little gems, but still 'gateways', as Dudicus puts it.

- Nathan

[Vincula]

I think there are ospreys that just repeat stuff from other books like the ones of Nick Fields and then there are ospreys that present all new material like the ones of Graham Summer. Some are a waste of cash (the first kind) and others are worth every cent (the second kind). I think anyways.

[Ghostmojo]

I have a great many Osprey titles covering all manner of periods that interest me (besides ancient - inc. Napoleonic, Dark Ages, AWOI, ACW, ECW and so on) and have generally found them to be quite good. The illustrations are usually excellent and the text well-considered and researched. In the area of ancients, it obviously becomes very difficult due to scarcity of material and sources, and the lack of objectivity of some ancient authors; but all-in-all they have succeeded in assembling a useful stock of books.

There are of course always exceptions. I can't speak as any expert in the Roman area of things (although I possess a few Osprey titles mainly covering Roman Republic/Carthaginian periods) but I have found some of their Greek books to be a bit thin in some respects - particularly the works of Nick Sekunda. The latter, who certainly knows much about the subject - professes expertise on Sparta in particular, however, if you have read the Osprey title The Spartan Army - it is seriously lacking, often in quite basic information. I'd be interested in others opinions about this particular volume - and/or other Greek or indeed Roman/Carthaginian volumes produced by Osprey - and also what alternatives exist that anybody might care to recommend.

[Ross Cowan]

What seems thin to a knowledgeable reader is probably just right for someone looking for an introduction to the subject. Don't forget that Osprey publications are aimed at a very broad audience.

I once wrote a harsh review of N. Sekunda's Spartan Army book, but having written three books for Osprey, I take it all back. For wee books, they take a lot of time and effort.

Cheers,

R

[M. Demetrius]

I agree with you, Ross. Naturally, older books may become outdated as new archeology makes discoveries, but all my Ospreys have bibliographies so if I want more elucidating articles/books, I know where to start. I guess one could say it's the Reader's Digest of history books, sorta.

(An old preacher was asked to come and speak to a gathering. He asked, "How much time will I have?"
The inviter queried, "Why do you need to know?"
"Because," said the old man, "The less time I have to speak, the more time I need to prepare.")

[Ghostmojo]

What seems thin to a knowledgeable reader is probably just right for someone looking for an introduction to the subject. Don't forget that Osprey publications are aimed at a very broad audience.

I once wrote a harsh review of N. Sekunda's Spartan Army book, but having written three books for Osprey, I take it all back. For wee books, they take a lot of time and effort.

Cheers,

R

Well yes, I take your point, and I think that Osprey books actually try to bridge a difficult divide between casual and serious student. That is clearly going to be a thankless task. In the case of Sekunda - where he fails is not even so much the absence of anorakist detail - but just a basic failure to consider that Sparta continued to wage war after Leuktra. In that sense he doesn't even inform the beginner with a developing interest the basics, that studying Spartan warfare can take you right down to Roman Republican encounters, even allowing for the fact we don't know so much about the armies of those later times (under Nabis for example). But we do know a fair bit about Kleomenes III and his conversion from hoplite to phalangite units. I actually find Sekunda's work on Sparta to be ill-considered in many respects. He jumps to conclusions without any obvious back-up - something to be found in other works of his and for other publishers like Montvert. IMHO Osprey need to find another author to rewrite that particular book.

Oh how I long for Lazenby's book to be republished - and perhaps with Osprey's better illustrators involved this time around 8) .

[Ross Cowan]

Oh how I long for Lazenby's book to be republished.

Yes, a real classic. I dream of owning a copy!

IMHO Osprey need to find another author to rewrite that particular book.

You should think about submitting a proposal yourself, perhaps for the Warrior series, or maybe for the Elite series (e.g. Spartan battle tactics).

Cheers,

R

[philsidnell]

You should think about submitting a proposal yourself, perhaps for the Warrior series, or maybe for the Elite series (e.g. Spartan battle tactics).

Cheers,R

Or perhaps try a different publisher?

Incidentally, we have a book on Kleomenes III and his reforms in the pipeline, a proper full-length one.

Phil Sidnell
Commissioning Editor
Pen & Sword Books
(and owner of numerous Osprey books on various periods)

[Ghostmojo]

... Incidentally, we have a book on Kleomenes III and his reforms in the pipeline, a proper full-length one.

Phil Sidnell

Now that is something I do look forward to 8) . Please keep us posted .

Cheers

H

[D B Campbell]

..., a proper full-length one.

As opposed to an improper Osprey?! :wink:

[M. Demetrius]

Might an improper osprey look something like a Harpy? :roll:

[Salvianus]

Yeah, some of the more specialised Osprey titles do sound a bit Holmesian: 'Waffen SS Boot Polish 1938-45', or the recent 'Clay Pipes of the British Line Regiments 1839-90'.

:lol: