Grrr. Copplestone Ngoni annoyance

[former user]

thank You very much

we are in no hurry, after all it is christmas 

I expect the difference between the two versions to be the hats only, since I noticed myself that even in the variety, there are quite a lot of head-swaps involved

at least they look more natural and varied than the Perry ones, which are really only head-swaps in the same stiff pose

[JollyBob]

No problem, and yes, the hats are the only difference between the two packs.

Personally, I don't find the similarity of the poses to be a problem, as they are only for forming line and giving volley fire anyway. 

[former user]

I agree, but it's a matter of taste

I used to have lots of the 1/72 plastics and got bored with the standard poses, so I try to avoid them even if they are historical like a firing line.

I know sculptors do use the same basic poses all the time to save work, but if it's only headswaps, what's the point? these I can do myself in 5 minutes

[Gluteus Maximus]

Troops in linear formations would usually be in very similar poses in real life - especially in highly disciplined forces like those of Britain or Prussia. After all, when standing to receive a charge with fixed bayonets or re-loading when volley firing, any half decent commander would hope his men are all doing the same thing at the same time.

I'm happy to have similar poses when troops are in formed units, but less so for skirmishers or more irregular/poorly disciplined Askris etc. As for tribesmen, that's when I do get a bit grumpy with too many similar poses - but even then how many radically different "charging with assegai" poses are there? 

The main problem with some native armies is the lack of variation in dress, but again with Zulus, Azande etc there wouldn't be that much within a tribal/regimental unit. Painting, adding variations in head-dress or head/weapon swaps within the unit can often disguise too much uniformity if required.

[aecurtis]

I have five headring figures available for swapsies (though sod's law will doubtless dictate we both have the same ones). That style of headring doesn't seem to have lived on past the first generation of Ngoni from Shaka's time, so they are a bit out of place on my 20th Century Ngoni really.

I'm not stalking Senor Plynkes, really.  But he did bring up this issue about headrings over on The Miniatures Page, so I stealthily followed him back down the jungle trail...

That is indeed what Chris Peers says in his Osprey on the warrior peoples of East Africa; he claims that the Zulu headring had fallen out by the 1880s.  He uses an image from Johnston's "British Central Africa" to illustrate a typical Ngoni warrrior (in the Copplestone "elite" headdress.

Well, I fear that Chris missed a bit.  Harry Johnston, writing in 1898 from his own observations from 1889 onward, said that "The Angoni, where they do not adopt the Zulu fashion among the married men of wearing a head-ring (made round the head with plastered hair), train their hair into long wisps which they tie up with grass or straw."  See page 421-422 here:

http://tinyurl.com/y9mlj6s

Note that he does not say that the Ngoni do not adopt the Zulu fashion, but as a dependent clause, indicates that *where* they do not, they follow another fashion.  This to me implies that some still wore the head-ring up to the end of the century, at least.

Allen

[Plynkes]

Good work, Allen. But my agreement with Blood stands. I prefer the non-headring ones anyway. 

[aecurtis]

And as you have shown, it's those without headrings that appear in photographs.  So no arguments from me!

Allen