Whats wrong with Osprey?

[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.