Australian Frontier Wars – Aboriginals: miniatures

Spirit Warriors

.

.

 

Aboriginal Warriors

From the earliest post of this project I mentioned that the utility of the Eureka Miniatures Denisovan figures would be the mainstay of the Aboriginal warriors to be used for this period. In this post I’m going to show some of the ways the current line of miniatures can be used, as I have done, to depict my Koori clansmen.

The pics below show the ‘greens’ that Eureka Miniatures had on their website showing off the Denisovans. You can see, in order from left to right, the conversions I’ve done to show how these figures can be used in a variety of ways in pictures following that of the ‘greens’. As you can tell, subtle conversions, combined with a few more extensive ones, really do provide for a good mix of figures.

Often figures in the same pose just need a twist of an arm or a new weapon in hand to look like a different figure. The way the arm and weapons are sculpted on these figures allows for a good deal of conversion and by including a lot more spear armed troops I think they look more like traditional Aboriginals with their propensity to always have a spear to hand. In addition, the thinner spear ie metal one, is more slender and befitting the typical spear a warrior would use rather than the thicker cast ones IMO.

Note, I have not used all the types of Denisovans available in the range. I went with those that looked distinctly Aboriginal in pose, style and look (mostly facial features) – not all do in my opinion, at least not to my taste. Thus by selectively getting the figures from the range that have classic aboriginal features and then doing a number of conversions as below, you can get a good deal of variety in posing but retain the ‘classic’ warrior look that I’m after.

One thing I have not done, and I don’t think is easily possible, is a change of heads. The unclothed sculpted figures really don’t allow for this as you can’t hide the join in the neck line on a jacket or something similar…whilst possible, it’s not worth it in my view and the sculpted hair into the rest of the body makes it hard. It is possible if you green stuff to blend it but that is probably beyond my feeble green-stuffing skills!

.

Conversions

 

 

em-den-1
Above you see the greens for the conversions below. These three figures provide a solid choice for ‘core’ aboriginal warriors. The first figure we’ll look at is the tribal elder/chief on the left.

img_4351

The left side figure has had his club ‘clipped off’, which I’ve kept for re-equipping another warrior. He’s been given the metal spear and the head of the spear has been replaced with a shark tooth spear end, clipped off another warrior (see below). I wanted this fellow to have a commanding presence ‘pointing’ the weapon to infer he is giving an order to his warriors somewhat like the ‘old boy’ out of the movie ‘Zulu. I’ve  also added a green stuff head band sculpted as animal fur to further customise his look.

The middle figure has an ‘over the shoulder’ animal skin green-stuffed to make him look a bit different. His arm has also been raised up indicating an inspiring ‘follow me’ moment or perhaps an order about to be given.

The right side figure has had his weapon clipped out and his arm bent so as to be able to take a spear. I’ve added a bit of green-stuff as this weapon could be painted with the hand hold to perhaps representing more of a ceremonial spear, in this case with a stuffed crow or otherwise a favoured weapon, not just a regular spear.

.

.

img_4352

Looking at the same figures from behind you can see the detailed fur on the back of the left-side elder and details of the other two. These adjustments have made this same figure into three quite different types through weapon swaps, arm positioning and a bit of green-stuffing (is that a word 🙄).

.

.

img_4356

The next figure along is a good candidate for conversion. He has a very aboriginal look, is crouching in a good ‘advancing’ pose, has a sheild and his right hand can easily be reequiped and repositioned. For the most part I’ve rearmed with a spear and with some subtle hand and arm twisting the figures look different in movement. Note, the spear variation positioning creates a more dynamic look as the weapons are in quite different positions, which your eye is drawn to. The left most warriors has had a boomerang from another figure repositioned into his hand for added variety.

.

.

img_4354

The last of the warriors equally has a good advancing pose, a sheild and a right hand that can be reequipped. His small dagger is clipped off so another spear armed warrior type can be made. As for the elder, a spear has had a sharks tooth end attached for a bit of variation in weapon types. This figure could easily be given a club or boomerang in his right hand also….a quite useful figure. These four figures look subtly different but are doing the same thing…which is the idea…kind of that ‘Perry ‘ look of same, but different, motion.

.

.

img_4355

The left hand figure has spear in a slightly different pose to the one above. The middle figure has a conversion for the same figures but being a little more creative.

He is portrayed as a spiritual warrior ie a clever man or shaman. He could be a leader as well. He has had a green-stuffed ceremonial headdress attached by clipping of the hair knot from the original. He then has been given a bit of wire to hold a crow (also available from Eureka Miniatures) and a bit of wrapping around as a hand-hold. He is very distinctive and with a suitable paint job should look pretty good…or at least different!

The figure on the right has had the hatchet type weapon repositioned from the previous warrrior type to give him more variation…mental note – always keep the weapons clipped off figures for re-arming onto another figure.

.

.

em-den-2

Of these three figures I’ve elected to only use the left and centre figures. The one on the right doesn’t fit in with the look I’m after though the one leg pose is appropriate for aboriginal warriors as they are often depicted standing that way. The centre one I’ve not altered and have used ‘as is’. The way the spear is sculpted on the figure doesn’t allow for easy removal and the arms can’t easily be repositioned as the spear is attached to the shield…so I’ll use the figure as the maker intended and paint it differently for variation.

The left hand figure however can be used for conversion.

.

.

img_4357

Here is the subtle variation that looks strikes a classic aboriginal look…a pose and physical look of the Australian native warrior…one of my favourite figures in the range. I’ve re-speared the figures and used the shark tooth head of the original spear for weapon variation, one of which is shown here. The arms have been repositioned and to my eye they look nicely ‘different’ from one another – a nice simple conversion.

.

.

img_4358

These same figures again. The left hand warrior has had an animal skin green-stuffed on him to mark him out as someone special – perhaps a junior leader.

 

.

.

em-den

Next group of figures are all excellent candidates for conversion. They have weapons that can be reused, both arms of which can be reequiped and reposed, have good arm positioning and looking distinctly aboriginal with shield and boomerang…nice work Mr Marsh! The figure on the right is my favourite from this range of minis.

.

.

img_4362

Here you can see quite a bit of variation. Starting from left to right, the first warrior has been given a club which came from one of the elder figures. The second figure from the left has had his arm repositioned into more of a stabbing pose as opposed to the third figure who shows the arm in the original position of preparing to strike. The third figure has also had is left-hand boomerang removed and been given a spear.

The fourth figure along has a spear in his right hand and the green stuff I’ve models is meant to represent the centre of a flaming spear…oh so good for burning crops, a favourite tactics of the native warriors. On top of this I’ll put some cotton wool to represent a smoking spear.

The one to his right also has a much larger green-stuffed flame… I guess the proof will be in the pudding when I painted to see just how they turn out. If worst comes to worse I consider pull off the green stuff and just make them simple spear warriors again…easy.

The last warrior has simply had his right arm repositioned and being given a spear in his left hand. From that one figure there is quite a bit of variation.

img_4361

Looking at the next figure the one to the left is as sculpted. The second one along has had his left hand weapon clipped and then given a spear.

The third one along has had his right hand boomerang removed and one of the elder clubs put in its place. In his left hand he’s been given a spear and though you can’t see it I fashioned a shield which is also carrying.

The last figure has had his right hand rearmed with a spear in an overhead defiant fashion making for quite a nice pose.

.

img_4363

The last figure of the greens that you can see is this warrior standing and looking in the distance. This is a very nice figure.

Moving from left to right, I’ve given the first warrior an animal skin over the shoulder look and in his right hand placed a warclub. Combined with the shield in his left hand and the distinguished look he will make for a very nice leader figure.

The second figure along has had his right hand slightly repositioned and then re-equipped with a spear, which I’ve fashioned on a bit of green stuff on for variation. The third figure along has simply had a right hand thin spear fitted as has the fourth, both in slightly different positions.

The second last figure has had his right hand re-equipped with a hatchet type club and the last is as per the original sculpt. From this one figure there is a good deal of variation.

.

Out of 7 variant figures of the original sculpts the are now 41 variants! In a typical army you therefore produce probably 3 of the same figure without any further repeats – an excellent result when one considers that warrior armies need to have a good deal of variety to capture the right look.

So, as you can see from the relatively limited number of figures, in this case little more than seven figures, I’ve been able to create alot of variation. When all these figures are painted and intermingled with one other they should provide the suitable look of a group of advancing warriors with leaders suitably posed but with a wide variety of weapon and pose positions.

It is my hope that these Denisovans may have a few figures added to them, perhaps four to six figures, in a more traditional and classic aboriginal look. If that were the case and they were as cleverly sculpted as these ones then there really would be an enormous amount of variation to create the look of an aboriginal warrior clan.

Needless to say, you can get more possible variations if you’re prepared to get a little bit of green-stuff going and you had some other weapons that you may want to fashion and put into the warrior’s hands. I think these figures are excellent and suitably painted should look quite the part.

.

.

In the next post we take a look at painting these figures and what sort of ‘look’ we shall go for to depict our warriors – see you then…

 

Advertisements

17 thoughts on “Australian Frontier Wars – Aboriginals: miniatures

  1. Thanks chaps.

    I have about 70+ warriors with about 50 more to do. I have enough to handle any small scale combat system and until I have the total painted up I can use some of Dan Mersey’s ideas for recycling troops for TMWWBK.

    http://merseybooks.blogspot.com.au/2016/12/tmwwbk-extra-rules.html

    The rules are as follows;

    Theoretical strength
    You may wish to implement this rule if you want to field a large Tribal Field Force but don’t (yet) have enough models… or if you’re looking for a slightly different tactical challenge.

    You can command a Field Force at Theoretical Strength as follows:
    -You must command an all-Tribal Field Force.

    -Work out the units you wish to include up to your agreed points value (24 points in the usual game). Ignore how many units you actually own.

    -Deploy as much of your Field Force as you have models for at the start of the scenario; deploy complete units only. The rest of your Field Force – at paper strength – lies in wait off table for the present moment.

    -When one of your on-table units has been destroyed or retreats off the table, recycle it at the start of the next turn from your paper strength resources.

    -Naturally, an Infantry unit may only replace an Infantry unit, and a Cavalry unit may only replace a Cavalry unit.

    -To make up for lost time – or if you prefer due to your amazing off-table generalship – during your next turn you may deploy the new unit along any table edge. It may not take any further action during this turn, and may not deploy with less than one of its Movement distances from any enemy units.

    -Remember to keep track of how many of your paper strength units you have deployed. We wouldn’t want you sneaking an extra impi onto the table, would we?

    Like

  2. Having researched this subject in depth over a period of decades and posted about it for many years on various hobby fora, and written a couple of heavy-weight articles (yet to be published, despite submission to two hobby magazines), I applaud your intensive efforts to bring it into the hobby fold, however, I have to take issue with your claim that it differs little from other colonial conflicts and can therefore be gamed with existing colonial rules with virtually no modifications.

    My research demonstrates that on all levels Australian frontier conflict in fact featured unique characteristics that set it apart from other colonial,conflicts, and which need to be accurately represented on the tabletop if our games are to be in any way reflective of the real historical skirmishes we claim they portray. After all, why would you bother if you’re just playing Congo or DitDC with different figures?

    I actually wrote a set of rules back in the early noughties, ‘Boomerang’, that sought to capture the distinct feel and flavour of larger skirmishes (those involving hundreds of warriors; colonial forces were almost always a fraction of the size of Aboriginal war parties) using 15mm figures. Having examined all the available 28mm skirmish rules options the closest mechanical fit I’ve found is Chris Peers’ Old West set ‘The Law of the Gun’. I’ve explained why previously on hobby fora, but I’d be happy to repeat my justifications here if you like.

    Like

  3. Hi Leigh,

    Great to see you pop by. I have read a number of your comments on this subject on backposts of LAF, TMP (IIRC) and perhaps other places I can’t remember. As I recall, all very good stuff and part of the more expanded thoughts around this subject – nice work, all approached from the right perspective. I think we may even have conversed once or twice around this topic if I recall.

    “I have to take issue with your claim that it differs little from other colonial conflicts and can therefore be gamed with existing colonial rules with virtually no modifications.”

    I’m not sure I said exactly that but your point is well taken as I haven’t yet articulated my thoughts on using existing rules with modification as I perceive it to depict Frontier Wars encounters…or in someway intimated as much. There is alot of information to get down before we get to rules thoughts and modifications…perhaps my throw away line was misleading.

    I agree with your basic premise that frontier conflict is not the same as other more popular conflicts of the colonial period involving large set piece encounters or high force numbers. One of my main goals, at this point, with my series of posts is to use existing colonial rules as a basis for modification after we get a feel for and understanding of the unique aspects of frontier conflict – most rules will not work straight out of the box without some aspect of the period being lost.

    There are a number of elements about the nature of aboriginal warfare and frontier conflict that make it different from ‘conventional’ colonial conflict that need to be expanded on which I shall be doing in my following posts. Lots to talk about on aboriginal guerrilla and economic warfare and all that and more…plenty to come down the line on that…

    In my upcoming posts I am going to look, in three parts, specifically at aboriginal traditional and adaptive warfare to set down ideas for developing rules and scenarios for players to then adapt to their preferred rule system. This will give them a good feel for the topic if they don’t have a lot of info which the consensus seems to be they don’t…unlike some such as yourself who have studied it in detail.

    I think to bring Frontier Wars a little more into the spotlight it needs to be accessible. Using existing rules might not be perfect, but I want to let people see that with modification that their favourite set will get them most of the way toward catering for the unique elements of the period(s) and playing frontier wars games. If that is achieved…mission accomplished.

    I think it is important that games and rule systems people play at their first point of contact with a new period is familiar and approachable – so providing background, suggested modifications, scenarios and ideas to then apply to a player’s preferred rule set is my modus operandi to combine familiarity with new ‘gaming’ territory..nothing kills off enthusiasm more than inaccessibility into a new period…I’ve seen it too many times.

    So bear with me, I hope you drop by for a read and spread the word about the viability of Frontier Wars games. It really is in how you approach game set up and victory conditions that make them feel unique and something different in many respects.

    ”…just playing Congo or DitDC with different figures”.
    Whilst this is true, there is much that is similar in the theme of games like Congo and exploration in Australia IMHO. Levering off such a game makes sense when similar themes emerge on a similar topic. Dealer’s choice. If this doesn’t seem right to you, well, just ditch it or change it so it does or ignore the lot!…what I can say is there is nothing out there right now in the wider gaming community on this topic in any level of detail that a player can make a start..it is the reason I am writing these posts in the first place! Widening frontier conflict games to as many game themes and styles of play casts the net wide so as to draw in prospective gamers to try something different.

    In the end, as I say, people can take what they like, adapt it, change it, use, expand and toss out whatever I have laid out that fits their own ideas. I ain’t the keeper of knowledge on this topic by a long way, but I want to get info out there and let people find out for themselves…and maybe dig a bit deeper and put forth their own ideas.

    ” I’ve explained why previously on hobby fora, but I’d be happy to repeat my justifications here if you like.”
    I’m always interested to hear other people’s ideas so please feel free to do so…I may even pinch an idea of two for my own rules changes!….or maybe we will be singing from the same play sheet…it’s all good.

    Cheers

    Happy

    PS feel free to chime into LAF or TMP if you like – but please only from the historical gaming perspective…you know the drill! 😉

    Like

  4. Thanks for the prompt and full response, Happy.

    First, I need to respond to your point about confining discussion to the history and gaming it. Having got it out of the way I promise that no more will be typed here about it.

    I’ve posted on the thread you started on TMP, and tried to do so on LAF, but very annoyingly there was met with the message ‘You are not allowed to post on this thread’. Why? Only God knows. Given that he never made any attempt to do so at any stage while I was posting on LAF about this subject, I was surprised to say the least to see the ‘moderator’ stepping in to preemptively stifle attacks from a certain individual whose rabid ravings have so often derailed any discussion of this subject. The feeling engendered is akin to that of being the unfavoured older child in the family who always gets the blame when the naughty favourite younger child misbehaves. Anyway, as a consequence of this biased treatment I will never again post on or even read LAF.

    In all the years I’ve been conveying the findings of my research on this subject on hobby fora I’ve had no desire or reason to relate anything that doesn’t concern the history or gaming, and have done my best to ignore attacks from the ignorant and attempts to divert discussion. If you go back and read those threads you’ll see that they always started as purely hobby-related posts … and then the saboteur(s) chimed in and, in some cases, it was necessary to respond to him/them and correct the distortions and misinformation he/they sought to impose on readers, and on numerous occasions I felt it necessary to remind readers that the thread was about the hobby and nothing more – but often to no avail.

    And now to toy soldiers…

    There are certain core elements that need to be represented in any accurate table-top representation of Australian frontier conflict:

    1. Colonial forces were almost always mounted, whereas Aboriginal forces were always on foot.

    2. Aboriginal forces usually heavily outnumbered colonial forces, and they needed to in order to successfully employ the tactics (described below) they’d developed in response to the inherent technological advantages of the colonials and to have any chance of achieving ‘victory’ (in the limited sense in which it was generally attainable)

    3. Colonial forces were mostly composed of settlers and/or police whose job description didn’t include dying for a cause and who expected easy victories, so they had a low for casualties; a few minor wounds or a lesser number of major wounds would be enough to cause them to break off an action.

    4. The objective of colonial forces in field engagements was always ‘dispersal’, that is, to break up concentrations of warriors and cause them to scatter and flee. If this objective wasn’t met the Aboriginal force could be said to have won.

    5. Tactics: contrary to popular opinion Aboriginal warriors evolved tactics specifically designed to compensate for the inherent technological deficiencies of their own weapons and counter the technological advantages of their colonial opponents. So well understood by some tribal elders were these tactics that they were communicated in detail from tribe to tribe via corroboree.

    Aboriginal missile weapons (spears, boomerangs, and nullas) were handicapped with two major disadvantages: low lethality, and low velocity. The first drawback could be compensated for by scoring multiple hits on a target, thereby increasing the chance of ejecting him from a fight. The latter drawback allowed a targeted individual to observe the flight of missiles thrown at him and take evasive action. To counter this problem warriors would be moved to positions outside the field of vision of the target so that no evasive action could be taken and the chance of scoring a hit was greatly increased. The ideal situation was to have the target’s/targets’ field of vision completely occupied with warriors and other warriors outside it so that no matter which way he/they turned there would be non-evadable missiles being thrown at him/them. As you can see, both of these compensatory mechanisms demanded heavy numerical superiority, which it just happens was usually available historically – which also means that balanced table-top games become possible. In contrast, in traditional warfare no attempt was made to place warriors outside the enemy’s field of vision. Honour could only be obtained by a warrior by standing in full view of his opponents and accepting any missiles thrown at him, relying purely on his evasive skills to dodge them and his dexterity with his shield to deflect them.

    You’ve said that you don’t believe there’s any point in playing games set after 1855. You might want to relax that stricture a little: the NMP actually suffered more defeats and casualties during the 1860s than in any other period. I believe this was because it lost some of its technological advantage when it started to expand its zone of operations beyond south-east QLD, where the local tribes didn’t use the woomera, into central and northern QLD where the resident tribes did use it. The NMP didn’t start to replace its DB smoothbore muzzle-loading carbines, with an effective range of sixty yards, with the Snider artillery carbine until the early 1870s, and some sections still had the old weapon in the middle of the decade. Yes, officers and troopers were armed with revolvers too, but these would also have been seriously out-ranged by the woomera-spear combination, with its effective range of about 100 yards.

    I hope this information is of use to you and your readers.

    Like

  5. Hi Leigh,

    I said
    “I may even pinch an idea of two for my own rules changes!….or maybe we will be singing from the same play sheet”

    Looks like we are pretty much singing from the same songsheet.

    I would agree with most of what you articulated – a very nice summation of some important aspects of the period which certainly adds to the discussion – thank you.

    In the various ways I intend to use different levels of rules for different types of play, IMO I’ve included most (relevant) points. Some scales of play don’t need to specify certain behaviour’s as the rules often drive such anyway. Other rules however need ‘period dogma’ to ensure some semblance of ‘reality’ is being portrayed otherwise it doesn’t ‘feel’ quite right.

    It’s good that some/all your points are covered in some way in the multiple rule sets I plan on using and hope others will have a go at. I respect your opinion on the topic as I know you have looked into it deeply. So whilst my interpretation might not be ‘exact’ to your list above (if such a thing can be), it certainly is sympathetic to many of your suggestions you note and which are relevant to the style/scale of game played – good stuff.

    If I may I’d like to cherry pick elements of your text in some of my follow up posts as Comments tend not to get read as much as posts do – you’ve laid out some nice period elements I’d like to ensure are more visible in a nice encapsulated form. I’m happy to credit your thoughts as they very much align with my own and nicely capture the period people should keep in mind when playing games set in the AFW.

    Regards my ‘1855 cut-off’. I’m not saying that players shouldn’t look beyond this time. As you say many of the more deadly small arms weapons don’t appear until the later half of the century and the NMP certainly suffered set backs as well as ‘successes’. Mostly my miniature collection revolves around the earlier period so I’ve just focused on that. I’m also a New South Welshman/Victorian, so conflicts in those states is ‘local history’ to me.

    It a shame you can’t post on LAF – your voice would be welcome. I’d be happy to speak to the moderator if you like to allow posting if you wish? I know of previous LAF threads on AFW (and their outcomes) but I have made such types of discussion ‘off-limits’ on my thread and the moderator agrees – and has already spoken on the subject…so there will be none of that.

    Thanks for the reply and I hope you can contribute your opinion in a ‘looking forward’ approach with relevant information (perhaps on TMP/LAF) and leave all that other stuff in the past…put all your knowledge to work to help others and expand the ideas around the topic…it ain’t going to change the colonial war-gaming world but one small step at a time is the idea…

    Cheers

    Happy W

    Like

  6. I’d be happy… Happy, for you to reuse some of my jottings if attributed to either of my online noms-des-keys.

    Just to expand on the points made above, the logical extension of Aboriginal tactics was encirclement of the colonials, whether individually or collectively, and this condition, or at least the attempt to achieve it, was indeed commonly reported in frontier fights. This outcome can in part be seen as an extension of the traditional hunter-gatherers’ animal drive, but it was also a natural culmination to the tactics described above: if colonials were completely surrounded not only would the warriors achieve the maximum non-evadable throws, but their enemies would then have to try and break out before the situation became critical and would inevitably have to ‘run the gauntlet’ in breaking through the encircling warriors. An example of such a situation can be found in the memoirs of QLD squatter Allan McPherson of Mt Abundance station..

    Like

  7. “I’d be happy… Happy, for you to reuse some of my jottings if attributed to either of my online noms-des-keys.”

    Thanks Leigh (Henry Martini) – I’ve got my series of posts on aboriginal warfare kicking off so will slip in your list into my post in toto though I have included much of it within my broader discussion – you points nicely summate key issues so will prove useful…thanks.

    In my research I’ve encountered a number of references to the ‘crescent formation’ and Connor and Broome go into some detail on it as well. It certainly seems a natural formation for a large group vs a smaller one with a view to minimising the impact of firearms, encirclement and ‘mass distraction’ to confuse a clan’s ‘quarry’.

    I’m not sure I’d overplay enforcing such ideas in rules for play but the game should at least encourage a benefit from such a formation or tactical play by the native player…firing arcs and visibility being important which Smooth & Rifled does very well, as does DiTDC, with TMWWBK core mechanic of unit based shooting effectively limiting firing arcs.

    I’ll leave you with a final thought.

    If you are interested, I’d be happy to provide you the opportunity for a ‘host post’ on my blog to describe and even provide your rules Boomerang to a wider audience. Off course you can do that on your own blog if you wanted to but with my release of this series of posts on Frontier Warfare, the modest attention it is attracting, it might be a good chance to get your rules into the public domain.

    I’d certainly be interested in having a look. Entirely up to you, I’m just offering as your rules sound like the only specific period rules I have heard off and as one of my aims is to provide people with the broadest look at possible rule choices for them your specific set on the subject would be nice to include in my look at rules for the period.

    Cheers

    Happy W

    Like

  8. Thanks for the offer, Happy; I’ll give it some consideration. It’s actually been some years since we last played ‘Boomerang’, and I’d need time to revive interest and attend to the inevitable tidying up and improvements required for publication first.

    BTW, I’m interested in knowing where you sourced that modern painting on the 8/1 entry. I’m familiar with most of the published illustrations on AFW (or my preferred term: the more academic AFC), but this is one I’ve somehow missed hitherto. It looks like the sort of image you’d expect to see in an Osprey on the subject, were there ever to be such a volume. The style is even reminiscent of Peter Dennis’ work. Does it depict a particular incident?

    Like

  9. “I’ll give it some consideration. It’s actually been some years since we last played ‘Boomerang’, and I’d need time to revive interest and attend to the inevitable tidying up and improvements required for publication first.”

    No probs Leigh – open offer if you want to use it. Release via Wargames Vault is also an option – download and print out or read on a tablet…very convenient and makes available to a wide audience.

    The painting IIRC was from an old 1970s bicentenary book I found in a library – kind of Paul Hamlyn like. The textual content was less useful than the nice paintings within but I agree, it has that nice Paul Dennis Osprey look…Osprey really do need to do an Osprey on this subject!

    Like

  10. There is actually a section on the frontier in the relevant ‘Queen Victoria’s Enemies’ volume (including an illustration of an Aboriginal warrior), but it’s old and somewhat inaccurate. I got the impression it was written in a hurry based on nothing more than a shallow read of Henry Reynold’s ‘The Other Side of the Frontier’.

    You might be interested to know that my regular opponent back when we played games of ‘Boomerang’, Dr Nic Grguric, is the author of an Osprey book: ‘The Mycenaeans’. His Phd thesis, entitled ‘The Architecture of Fear’, was a survey and analysis of fortified Australian frontier dwellings. He’s the national authority on the subject. You might even have read his thesis during your researches into this subject. If not, and if you’d like to, I could ask him which uni library it’s held in.

    Like

  11. According to his Wikipedia bio McBride worked for three childrens’ educational magazines in the sixties and seventies (he was born in 1931, so he was well beyond his youth by this time), which were distributed throughout the Commonwealth. Are you able to check the magazine for an artist’s credit, Happy? I’m very confident it’s his work: the style just screams McBride, and it matches perfectly his other depictions of natives, such as in the various Ospreys on Zulus in my personal library.

    Like

    • “‘Queen Victoria’s Enemies’”

      I have that and it does reflect Reynold’s views – there wasn’t much to go on back then so I suspect you are right up to a point…probably to be expected.

      I’m away for the public library where the book is but will be back in a couple of weeks so will endeavour to go to the library and see if an artist credit is given in the book credits…if indeed it did come from there. I think it did but I have looked at many sources on this subject over a number of months so I might be jumbling a few pic sources up.

      😉

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s