Welcome to the Strelets Forum.
Please feel free to discuss any aspect of 1/72 scale plastic figures, not simply Strelets.
If you have any questions about our products then we will answer them here.
Yes, the Waterloo British Cavalry set had/has its virtues; the sculpts are robust and half of the poses are quite good. The horses are not great, but even so. Employing these as SYW hussars is a good use for this veteran set.
There are so many 'If only...' questions with the Airfix Napoleonic/Waterloo range, that are now disappearing into the mists of time. If only they had made the Hussars set to the same scale/style as the Cuirassiers; or in fact preferably, made the Cuirassiers to the chunkier style of the Hussars. if only they had made a decent set of French artillery; if only there had been at least one officer on foot in the British infantry set, and a standard bearer. If only the French infantry set had had some much better poses (proper march attack, proper marching with musket on left shoulder, proper advancing with levelled musket, better drummer, better bugler, proper Porte Aigle and Eagle.....and not been so 'chunky'.
But we did what we could with them...and, I have to admit, I still use the British infantry set as part of my 1815 Hundred Days Anglo/Dutch/Belgian/Hanoverian army.:blush:
I think the mention of London also served to drive my mind toward ECW at first, then thought "ohh, this must be WoSS related."
As you guys have stated I think this chap will be useful in some fashion, whether as an Austrian or something else. Maybe WoSS archaeological evidence can help? Albeit battlefield archaeology for that was is in its infancy. Maybe government written records? Because yea, paintings are pretty unreliable, sadly.
I would like to sympathise with Flambeau's statement and mention that Strelets does have a bad tendency to give too much armour to its sets in general. Not every Roman has to have armour, armoured Dacians were rare, ship borne Vikings as well as Ancient Germanics were almost entirely u armoured, and WoSS French pikemen with breastplates were rare (at best). They are all still useful in the right contexts, but for future reference it is ok to eschew the armour and focus on their clothing.
Sorry for the typos... I am not smart with smartphones! :joy: :sweat_smile:
Yeah well, as to the reliability of sources: paintings, when were they executed? 20 years after the event? Was the painter present? Did he paint to show how things actually looked or just to please the eye of his patron? Uniform regulations? Were the items ever issued and if when? Memoirs? Were they written 20 years later when the authors memory was already fading? No source is actually 100% reliable. The best thing we get is probability. Even battlefield archeology won't help much, as the fields were usually scrupulously plundered. And: a fancy helmet might survive in the ground whereas two thousand tricornes just rot away. So you find the surviving helmet and deduce that's what everybody was wearing ... I think the pictures are a good starting point if we keep in mind they probably show just a part of the truth.
An prudent archaeologist would hypothesise the presence of a single helmet example on a battlefield means one guy, or at most a mix of guys in the pertinent units, wore them.
A combination of as many sources as possible of course in most cases ideal, which seems to be the way forward here.
Anywho, sculptors of Strelets, consider sets with little to no armour or helmets in the future please. 😎
As soon as I get my hands on them they will be painted up as Brits, this guy is straight out of Osprey and works for me, right number of buttons or not.